THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.25873 of 2008 8th December, 2009 Smt.Rangamma and another .. Petitioners And The Special Collector (Land Acquisition) Bheema Project, Mahaboobnagar and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.25873 of 2008 ORDER:- This Court issued rule nisi on 26-11-2008 and in W.P.M.P.No.33852/2008 interim stay of disbursement of compensation determined under the Award, both to the petitioners and to respondents 3 to 5, pending further orders had been granted. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed W.V.M.P.NO.3484/2009 and respondents 3 to 5 filed W.V.M.P.NO.1762/2009 and reply affidavit also had been filed by the writ petitioners. 3. Sri Suryakaran Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also would maintain that it is not as though the serious dispute between the parties had not been brought to the notice of the 1st respondent, despite the representations made in this regard and it is not stated that 80% of the compensation already had been paid and the said stand is not a justifiable stand. The learned Counsel also had further drawn the attention of this Court to the material papers placed before this Court. 4. The learned A.G.P. for Land Acquisition had taken this Court through contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the light of the clear stand taken in the counter affidavit, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with at this stage. At any rate, the learned A.G.P. for Land Acquisition would maintain that these aspects would be gone into at the stage of Award enquiry. 5. Sri N.Ashok Kumar, the learned Counsel representing R.3 to R.5 had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, the Writ Petition itself is a prematured one, the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard the Counsel on record, perused the respective stands taken by the parties and the material placed before this Court. 7. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to disburse the Land Acquisition compensation to the respondents 3 to 5 in respect of the lands acquired to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.256 and the lands acquired to an extent of Ac.7.29 cents in Sy.No.275 situated at Boothpur village, Makthal mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, pursuant to the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) in Form No.5-A No.B2/696/2008, dt.18-9-2008 issued by the 1st respondent herein, and consequently refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act by duly depositing the land acquisition compensation under Section 31 of the Act before the Civil Court resolving the civil dispute in respect of ownership between the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 herein in respect of the said property and pass such other suitable orders. 8. It is averred that proceeding for acquiring the lands to an extent of Ac.37.79 cents was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of Boothpur Balancing Reservoir were initiated and accordingly Section 6 declaration was made on 18-9-2008 by the 1st respondent. In the said declaration, the lands belonging to the petitioners situated in Sy.No.256 to an extent Ac.1.31 cents and the lands situated in Sy.No.275 to an extent of Ac.7.37 guntas of Boothpur village, Makthal mandal, Mahaboobnagar District are included for the purpose of the said acquisition. However in respect of the lands in Sy.No.256, the 1st petitioner along with the respondents 3 to 5 herein are shown as pattedars. An extent of Ac.0.66 cents of land was shown in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 and the remaining extent of Ac.0.65 cents of land was shown in favour of the 1st petitioner herein, out of the total extent sought to be acquired i.e., Ac.1.31 cents in Sy.No.256. In fact the 1st petitioner herein was the pattedar of the total extent of land in Sy.No.256 was Ac.4.17 guntas and out of the said land, Ac.1.31 cents of land is now sought to be acquired. Therefore for the entire extent of land, the 1st petitioner herein is enetitled to receive the compensation. In fact the respondents 3 to 5 herein claimed an extent of Ac.4.17 guntas as the heirs of one Sri Hanmi Reddy, but the said land is now as his patta land. No land from out of the above said Ac.4.17 guntas, which is now shown in the Revenue Records in his favour is now sought to be acquired. The acquired land falls in the portion of the 1st petitioner’s land in Sy.No.256, therefore the 1st petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner, as the legal heirs of late Ananth Reddy, alone are entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the total extent of land in respect of Ac.1.31 cents in Sy.No.256. 9. It is also stated that Ac.14.45cents is now sought to be acquired from out of the Sy.No.275, vide Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 18-9-2008. In the said Draft Declaration, to an extent of Ac.7.16 cents, one Sri Harijan Narasimhulu and Nirmalamma are rightly shown as pattedars, since the husband of the 1st petitioner late Ananth Reddy sold the property to them. Whereas, the remaining land to an extent of of Ac.7.29 cents, the respondents 3 to 5 herein were shown as pattedars, claiming through late Hanmi Reddy i.e., the brother of late Ananth Reddy. In this connection, it is stated that Hanmi Reddy died issueless and upon his death, the said property was enjoyed by late Ananth Reddy and on his demise, the petitioners are entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.7.29 cents in Sy.No.275. 10. Further it is stated that since respondents 3 to 5 herein were claiming as dependants of late Hanmi Reddy and obtained a certificate from Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal, dt.18-10-2006. Based upon the same, they claimed the ownership in respect of the lands of late Hanmi Reddy situated in survey Nos.256 and 275 to an extent of Ac.4.17guntas and Ac.7.37 guntas respectively and based upon the same, the Tahsildar,Makthal vide R.O.R.No.B/137/2006, dt.12-9-2007, allowed the names of the respondents 3 and 4 herein and the mother of the 5th respondent are to be entered into the Revenue Records i.e., Pahani and Form-I of R.O.R. by duly deleting their names. Aggrieved by the said Dependants Certificate dt.18-10-2006, the petitioners filed O.S.No.16/2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction and further declaration to declare the Dependants Certificate dt.18-10-2006 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal as null and void and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 18-7-2008. Whereas, the respondents 3 to 5 herein filed O.S.No.6/2008 on the file of Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, seeking perusal injunction and the same is now pending. Thus a serious civil dispute is pending in respect of the above said lands now notified for acquisition in survey No.256 to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents and in survey No.275 to an extent of Ac.7.29 cents. Therefore not showing the names of the petitioners as Pattedars in respect of the above said lands and showing the names of the respondents 3 to 5 herein as pattedars in Section 6 of the declaration and further proposing to pay the entire compensation to the respondents 3 to 5 herein is illegal, ay and unconstitutional. 11. It is also stated that aggrieved by the same, the petitioners made a representation before the 1st respondent on 26-9-2007 and 29-8-2006, but the 1st respondent without considering the pendency of civil dispute, are now proposing to disburse the land acquisition compensation in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 herein. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter is to be referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act by duly depositing the land acquisition compensation under Section 31 of the Act, in respect of the said lands before the Civil Court. 12. As the respondents No.1 and 2 herein are now proposing to pay the land acquisition compensation in respect of the above acquired land to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents in survey No.256 and to an extent of Ac.7.29 cents in survey No.275 to respondents 3 to 5 herein, ignoring the civil dispute pending between the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 herein, in respect of the above said lands and further ignoring the final decree made in O.S.No.16/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, dt.18-7-2008, while issuing Section 6 declaration dt.18-9-2008, the petitioners approached this Court praying for the reliefs specified supra. 13. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is averred that the contention of the petitioners is not correct. None of the beneficiaries over the suit lands in Sy.No.256 (0-66 cents) and 275 (7-29 cents) of Budpur village of Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District had been provided with land acquisition compensation except 80% of land acquisition compensation of Rs.1,46,328/- only had been paid and disbursed to one Sri Narayana Reddy, S/o.Hanmi Reddy – respondent No.3 in W.P.No.25873/08 through cheque No.550177 on 1-12- 2008 vide this office proceedings No.B/174/2007, dt.1-12- 2008 on his own consent. The respondent No.3 whose land of Ac.2-01 cents out of Sy.No.275 acquired for Budpur Balancing Reservoir had given statement to receive land compensation on consent package rates and executed agreement bonds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1050, dt.17-10-1992 and G.O.Ms.No.45, dt.15-3-2005 and requested this office to pay 80% of land compensation to him and he had been paid after approval of P.V. by the Special Collector (LA), Bheema Project, Mahaboobnagar vide Proc.No.B1/396/2008, dt.18-9-2008. This Court granted interim order on 26-11-2008 with a direction to Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Makthal not to pay compensation to respondents 3 to 5. But the petitioner – Smt.Rangamma submitted the copy of the interim order on 4-12-2008, originally passed on 26-11- 2008, with a delay of 7 days and by that time, 80% of the compensation was paid to respondent No.3 as per Rules. It is also stated that now the case will be referred to the Civil Court (Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet), under Section 30 of the Act, and amount will be deposited in the Civil Court under Section 31 of the Act, as per the orders of this Court, after finalization of Award in the acquired lands of Budpur village. 14. Further it is stated that it is a fact that an extent of Ac.1-31 cents out of Sy.No.256 and Ac.7-29 cents out order Sy.No.275 acquired for excavation of surplus course of Budpur Balancing Reservoir under the Act. It is also a fact that an extent of Ac.0-66 cents from the portion of the respondents 3 to 5 and an extent of Ac.0-65 cents from the portion of 1st petitioner was notified and acquired from Sy.No.256 under the Act. In the light of the Village and Revenue Records, it is not correct to say that the first petitioner is only the pattedar for the entire extent of Ac.1- 31 cents acquired from Sy.No.256 and she is only eligible to receive entire compensation on it under the Act. Sy.No.275 having an extent of Ac.7-37 cents acquired for Budpur Balancing Reservoir is a patta land of respondents 3 to 5 as they are the legal heirs and dependants of the original pattedar Late Hanmi Reddy. 15. It is also stated that it is correct that an extent of Ac.14-45 cents out of suit land i.e., Sy.No.275 was proposed to be acquired for excavation of formation of surplus course of Budpur Balancing Reservoir vide Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act dt.18-9-2008. The names of Sri Harijan Narsimhulu, S/o.Ramanna, Ac.3-95 cents and Smt.Nirmalamma W/o.Chenna Reddy (Ac.3-21 cents) mentioned as pattedar for total Ac.7-16 cents are also correct which was sold by the deceased pattedar Ananth Reddy, S/o.Bal Reddy as contended by the petitioners. But the contention of the petitioners that they are the legal owners, possessors and absolute pattedars of remaining extent of Ac.7-29 cents out of the suit land acquired is not correct and far from truth as it came into the portion of Sri Hanmi Reddy after partition of the suit lands in between two brothers Ananth Reddy and Hanmi Reddy, both sons of Bal Reddy of Budpur village. It is also not correct that Hanmi Reddy died issueless. As per the Revenue Records Hanmi Reddy was the original pattedar and owner of Ac.7-29 cents out of Sy.No.275 of Budpur village. The respondents 3 to 5 are the sons of the deceased pattedar which is evident from the Dependant Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal vide Lr.No.C/4147/06, dt.18-10-2006. Moreover, the Tahasildar, Makthal, through his judgment in ROR No.B/137/06, dt.20-9-2007, clearly ordered to delete the names of the petitioners wherever entered into Revenue Records i.e., Pahani Patrak and Form-I of ROR in respect of Sy.No.275 to an extent of Ac.7-29 and 256 to an extent of Ac.4-17 cents and also ordered to cancel the pattedar pass book and Title Deed obtained by the petitioners clandestinely. Respondents 3 to 5 are the rightful owners and pattedars for the land in Sy.No.275 and 256 (Ac.4-17 cents) of Budpur Village as per the Revenue Records and proceedings of the Tahasildar, Makthal in ROR No.B/137/06, dt.20-9-2007. 16. Further it is averred that out of respondents 3 to 5 patta lands, a portion of of Ac.0-66 cents in Sy.No.256 and entire extent of Ac.7-29 cents in Sy.No.275 was acquired for excavation of Bodpur Balancing Reservoir under the Act. Nothing is audacious or unscrupulous if the compensation towards land acquisition goes to the respondents 3 to 5 over their landed portions acquired from their patta lands. 17. It is further averred that it is correct that the petitioners made representations twice before the respondent No.1 on 26-9-2007 and 29-8-2006 requesting not to disburse compensation towards land acquisition to the respondents No.3 to 5 informing civil dispute about the ownership in the Court case. But it is not correct to say that the compensation had been paid and disbursed over the suit lands to the respondents No.3 to 5 except 80% of land compensation paid to Sri Narayana Reddy – respondent No.3 on his request and after execution of agreement bonds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1050 dt.17-10- 1992 and G.O.Ms.No.45, dt.15-3-2005 after approval of P.V. by the Special Collector (LA), Bheema Project, Mahaboobnagar vide Proc.No.B1/396/08, dt.18-9-2008. After finalization of “Award” and as per the order of this Court, the case will be referred to the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet under Section 30 of the Act and amount will be deposited in the Court as per Section 31 of the Act. 18. It is also averred that it is not correct to say that the respondents No.1 and 2 are proposing to disburse and pay the land compensation amount to the respondents No.3 to 5 over the suit land i.e., Ac.7-29 cents in Sy.No.275 and Ac.0-66 cents in Sy.No.256 acquired under the Act. As stated above, as per the Award enquiry the eligible land holders will be paid the just compensation. If any rival claims are received, the matter will be referred to the concerned Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. It is further stated that as on today, no disbursement of land compensation at all made to any of the beneficiary over the suit lands till now, except 80% of land compensation paid in respect of Sy.No.275 to an extent of Ac.2-01 cents to Sri Narayana Reddy, s/o.late Hanmi Reddy – respondent No.3 on consent and agreement bonds executed by him in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1050, dt.17-10-1992 and G.O.Ms.No.45, dt.15-3-2005. Further it is stated that the question of ignoring judicial orders by respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., the final decree made in O.S.No.16 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, does not arise as contended by the petitioners. It is also stated that this Court on 26-11-2008 granted interim stay of disbursement of compensation in the present land acquisition case. In view of the interim orders of this Court, the payment of compensation had been stopped and the same will be deposited in the Civil Court after finalization of the Award. 19. Respondents No.3 to 5 also filed counter affidavit. Specific stand had been taken that the lands in Sy.No.256 an extent of Ac.0-66 cents and in Sy.No.275 an extent of Ac.7-29 guntas was acquired by the Government or formation of Bhoothpur Reservoir including other lands belong to different individuals which are situated at Bhoothpur village, Makthal mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 4(1) notification under the Act was issued for acquiring the above lands. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued by the Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Bheema Project, Mahaboobnagar District dt.18-9-2008. The other formalities under the Act are yet to be completed after following due process of law laid down under the provisions of the Act which are still pending. But the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction from this Court to refer the matter to a competent Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. It is also stated that no Award was passed so far, no amount of compensation is ascertained by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, seeking a direction at this stage, to refer the matter to a Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act is misconceived and prematured. Thus, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable seeking such relief. 20. Further it is stated that under Section 30 of the Act any dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation awarded after its settlement under Section 11 of the Act, a discretion is vested with the authorities to refer the matter to the Civil Court for such dispute. The petitioners had ample opportunity to represent before the Land Acquisition Officer to make their claim with regard to their interest in the land under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. The Collector is empowered under Section 11 of the Act to pass an Award after conducting an enquiry as to apportionment of compensation among all the persons or believed to be interested in the land. Thus, without availing such opportunity, the petitioners approached this Court claiming title over the land acquired which is not maintainable. 21. It is also stated that their father late Hanmi Reddy was the owner and pattedar of lands in Sy.No.256 and 257. They inherited the property after his death and their names had been recorded in all the Revenue Records as successors of their father late Hanmi Reddy. Their names were also shown in the notification issued by respondent No.1 under the Act as pattedars and possessors in respect of the acquired land. Thus, they are rightful owners and possessors to claim the compensation for the lands acquired by the Government. The petitioners had no right or title to claim the ownership of the land, as they are the sons of Ananth Reddy who is the brother of late Hanmi Reddy. It is also incorrect to say that Hanmi Reddy died issueless and after his death, the petitioner succeeded the property is absolutely incorrect and it is deliberate and false statement given by the petitioners for which they are liable for prosecute for perjury. 22. Further it is stated that the petitioners filed a false suit O.S.No.16/07 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, for declaration of title against Narayana, S/o.Narsappa, Anjaiah, S/o.Narsappa, Anjamma, D/o.Narsappa, Shantamma, D/o.Narsappa, Narsingamma D/o.Narsappa and Anasuya W/o.Hanmi Reddy, who are nothing to do with the suit schedule land and no way concerned with the properties. The names shown in the plaint as Defendants are bogus and nonest, since there are no such persons having interest in the suit schedule property and they have not contested the suit. Ultimately, it was decreed ex parte. Thus, the decree passed in O.S.No.16/2007 is not binding on these respondents as they are not parties to the suit. Whereas, taking advantage of false decree, the petitioners are trying to interfere in their possession of the suit schedule property. They constrained to file suit O.S.No.6/2008 before the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, against the petitioners along with one Tirupathi Reddy, S/o.Ananth Reddy. They obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.15/2008 dt.13-2- 2008. The injunction is still subsisting today. Thus, the petitioners will not have any title over the acquired lands against them. 23. Further it is also stated that if the petitioners made any representation before the Land Acquisition Officer, they can pursue their remedy before him to made their claim, but at this stage the petitioners cannot seek a relief of stay of disbursement of compensation determined under the Award. There is no Award passed and the Land Acquisition proceedings were not completed, then there is no question of referring the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. 24. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, again the stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had been reiterated. It is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 even before finalizing the Award and submitting the same to the Civil Court for adjudication under Section 30, had chosen to pay 80% of the Land Acquisition compensation to the 3rd respondent, even though, the claims of them are that the respondents 3 to 5 are not entitled to receive any compensation in respect of the acquired land. 25. Further it is stated that the respondents 3 to 5 are not the children of late Hami Reddy. In fact Smt.Gajalamma, who is the mother of respondents 3 to 5 was initially married Hanmi Reddy, but before she got any children, she deserted her husband and developed illicit intimacy with Boya Narasappa of Chinnajatram village, Narayanpet mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. The respondents 3 to 5 are the children of Smt.Gajalamma and Boya Narsappa, but not the children of late Hanmi Reddy. Taking advantage of the death of Hanmi Reddy and acquisition of his lands by the Land Acquisition Officer, they obtained a dependant certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal, dt.18-10-2006 stating they are the dependants of Hanmi Reddy. The said certificate is not a succession certificate. Based upon the said certificate, the names of respondents 3 to 5 were entered into the Revenue Records as the owners in respect of the property of late Hanmi Reddy. The said Dependant Certificate was challenged by the petitioners in O.S.No.16/2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction and also to decree that the dependency certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Makthal is null and void and without jurisdiction, and the said suit was decreed in their favour on 18-7-2008. Thus, as on today, the petitioners the heirs and owners and are entitled to receive the land acquisition compensation, in respect of acquisition of property belongs to late Hanmi Reddy. 26. It is also further stated that the respondents 3 to 5 cannot receive any amount of whatsoever towards the land acquisition compensation in respect of the acquisition of property of late Hanmi Reddy and as such the payment of 80% of compensation to the 3rd respondent in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 is not proper and the land acquisition authorities ought to have conducted a detail enquiry as prescribed under the Act and passed an Award of enquiry, if necessary to refer the matter under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act. 27. Further specific stand had been taken that the stage of Award enquiry was not disclosed in the counter affidavit and further what steps had been taken by the Land Acquisition authorities pursuant