HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.15376 of 2009 Tuesday, the 08th day of September 2009 Between: Smt. Ayesha. … Petitioner And 1. The Government of A.P, Rep. by its Secretary, Transport Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents * * * ORDER: This Court issued Rule Nisi on 11.8.2009. Heard Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not paying compensation to the petitioner herein for the lands acquired by the respondents as per notice issued under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act admeasuring 1472.22 square yards in Plot Nos.24, 25, 26, 42, 43 and 44 in S.Nos.345 and 346 situate at Papireddy Nagar, Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy, belonging to the petitioner with all benefits under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the lands situate in Plot Nos.24, 25, 26, 42, 43 and 44 in S.Nos.345 and 346 admeasuring 1472.22 square yards as per Notice issued under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act belonging to the petitioner and pass such other suitable orders. 3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.3, the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries), Hyderabad. 4. Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and would maintain that in the light of the specific stand taken in the counter-affidavit, let steps be taken by the third respondent to get back the amount, so that the same may be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had taken this Court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and would maintain that no doubt by bona fide mistake the amount had been deposited before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, on 19.6.2007 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also would maintain that appropriate steps would be taken to see that the amount already deposited before the District Court, Ranga Reddy District, be sent back, so that the same to be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. It is stated that originally one Samala Janardhana Reddy was the absolute owner of plots bearing Nos.48, 49 and 50 in S.No.346 admeasuring 1472.22 square yards situate at Papireddy Nagar, Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently, petitioner’s husband Rahman Shariff purchased the said property from the said Janardhana Reddy by way of a registered sale deed in the year 1989 and by virtue of revised layout, the above plot numbers were renumbered as 24, 25, 26, 42, 43 and 44 in S.No.346 admeasuring 1472.22 square yards. It is also stated that petitioner’s husband executed a registered gift deed in her favour on 24.01.1992 and, thus, she became absolute owner of the said property. 7. It is also stated that the first respondent issued a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’ for the purpose of convenience), dated 14.8.2003, dispensing with Section 5A inquiry, proposing to acquire the lands in various survey numbers, including the plots in S.Nos.345 and 346 belonging to the petitioner, for laying road of 150 feet wide link road from RCI and DRDL. It is also stated that in the said notification petitioner’s vendors viz., S. Janardhana Reddy and other joint owners’ names were shown as owners of land in Sy.Nos.345 and 346 and the road is passing through her plots and the entire extent of land belonging to the petitioner had been acquired for formation of the road. It is also stated that the petitioner participated in the award inquiry and submitted her title deeds. The petitioner had not received any notice from the authorities. The name of the petitioner was shown in the notice, which was issued in favour of B. Udaya Bhaskar, who lost his land in the said notification, and on a request, a copy of the notice issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act had been furnished to the petitioner. It is stated that in the notice of Award issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act on 16.11.2006 an amount of Rs.3,67,716/- was shown as compensation. Despite the representations for payment of compensation, no compensation had been paid on the ground that the plots of the petitioner are situated in S.No.345 and not in S.No.346. The petitioner obtained rectification sale deed from the competent registering authority to show that her land falls under S.Nos.345 and 346 and the same was submitted to the respondents for payment of compensation. Since the claim of the petitioner for payment was settled after issuance of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act, the respondents cannot withhold the payment of compensation. 8. It is further stated that the petitioner made number of representations to the respondents seeking payment of compensation. The action of the respondents in laying the road without paying compensation to the petitioner is wholly unsustainable, illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that the Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad, had sent requisition for acquisition of lands to an extent of Acs.89-00 cents for 150 feet road widening on either side of RCI and DRDL link road, situate at Roshanuddowla, Balapur, Mallapur and Sulthanpur villages of Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide letter dated 14.2.1994. On the instructions of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, land acquisition proceedings had been initiated and the notification under Section 4 (1) and 6 of the Act were published in the A.P. Gazette as follows. Mode of publication Notification U/s.4(1) Notification U/s.6 A.P. Gazette RR No.60 dt.25.8.03 RR No.61 dt.1.9.03 English Daily News Boom dt.14.9.03 News Boom dt.19.9.03 Telugu Daily Eenadu dt.16.9.03 Varthamanam 19.9.03 Locality 13.9.03 13.9.03 The required notices had been published as required under the Act and served on the persons interested. The inquiry into the claims had been conducted, possession of the land was taken over and handed over to the requisition department on 25.11.2003 and the Award was pronounced on 31.10.2006. 10. It is also stated that in respect of the plots bearing Nos.24, 25, 26, 42, 43 and 44, to an extent of 1,472.22 square yards in Sy.No.345 of Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the petitioner had applied for payment of compensation by enclosing copies of documents which show that the plots are in Sy.No.346. But as seen from the layout, the plots are under Sy.No.345. Hence, the petitioner was instructed to get the rectification deed changing the survey number in the registered document. Since the petitioner had not submitted the same, an Award had been passed under Section 30 of the Act on 31.10.2006 and the compensation amount had been deposited in the civil court under Section 31 (2) of the Act and the same is pending in the District Court, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner had approached the respondents for payment of compensation along with the rectification deed only after the reference was referred to the civil court. 11. It is further stated that the lands of the petitioner had been acquired by following due process of law under the provisions of the Act. Specific stand had been taken that Award had been passed and the compensation amount had been deposited before civil court under Section 31 (2) of the Act, vide office letter No.D/189/94, dated 19.6.2007, and the same is pending in the District Court, Ranga Reddy District. Further specific stand had been taken that the petitioner approached the respondents’ office for payment of compensation along with rectification deed only after reference was made to the civil court. It is stated that the compensation amount due to be paid to the petitioner is Rs.3,67,716/- as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer as specified under Section 12 (2) notice under the Act. 12. It is needless to say that when by a bona fide mistake, though there is no dispute or controversy at all, the third respondent had chosen to make deposit of the amount before the District Court, Ranga Reddy District, along with other claimants, it is the bounden duty of the third respondent to see that the said bona fide mistake is duly rectified by getting back the amount, so that the same may be paid to the writ petitioner in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the petitioner is entitled to all other benefits, inclusive of the accrued interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 13. In the light of the same, let the third respondent take appropriate steps to get back the amount from the District Court, Ranga Reddy District, pertaining to the writ petitioner and let the said amount along with the interest and the other benefits, if any, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act be paid to the petitioner at the earliest point of time, preferably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: September 8, 2009. BSB