IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12412 of 2009 Between: Atla Vekatamma W/o. Achaiah R/o. Q.No.29, Raman colony, Mandamarri, Dist. Adilabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, at Mancherial, Adilabad District. 2 The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, rep. by its General Manager, Srirampur Area, Adilabad District. 3 Maddula suguna W/o. Malla reddy R/o.Srirampur, R/m Mancherial 4 Guda Ammai W/o. Nndanna R/o. Venkatapur Village, Manthani (M), Karimnagar District. 5 Maddula Padma W/o.Satyanarayana Reddy R/o. Pegadapally Village, Jaipur (M), Adilabad District. 6 Thurka Satyamma W/o.Satyanarayana Reddy R/o. Gangipally Village, Jaipur (M), Adilabad District. 7 Thurka Satyanarayana Reddy S/o. Raji reddy R/o. Gangipally Village, Jaipur (M), Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in proposing to pay the entire compensation amount to the respondents No.6 & 7 without deciding the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 18 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, in file No. A/1148/2009, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to stop the payment of the compensation amount to the respondent No. 6 and 7 till the 1st respondent decides the petition filed bythe petitioner under Section 18 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, in file No. A/1148/2009 and to pass such other suitable orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER:- Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for Land Acquisition, Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao and Sri V.Venkat Mayur, the learned Counsel representing respondents. 2. W.V.M.P.No.2426/2009 is filed to vacate the interim order granted in W.P.M.P.No.16048/2009 dt.2-7-2009. 3. At the request of the Counsel on record, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally. 4. The Counsel on record had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also in the respective counter affidavits and made elaborate submissions. 5. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in proposing to pay the entire compensation amount to the respondents No.6 and 7, without deciding the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 18 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, in file No.A/1148/2009, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, Article 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to stop the payment of the compensation amount to the respondents No.6 and 7 till the 1st respondent decides the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 18 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act in file No.A/1148/2009 and pass such other suitable orders. 6. It is stated that the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 are the own sisters being the daughters of late Rikkula Buchaiah, S/o.Rajaiah, R/o/.Gangipally village. Respondents No.7 is the husband of respondent No.6. It is also stated that originally Rikkula Buchaiah was the owner and pattedar of the land bearing Sy.No.54/A measuring Ac.3-00, Sy.No.54/B measuring Ac.3-00, Sy.No.58 measuring Ac.3-05 gts., and Sy.No.62/B measuring Ac.6-24 gts., all situated at Gangipally village. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner died on 28-6-2001 leaving the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 as his legal heirs. Hence the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 succeeded the above said lands from their father under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. So far, they have not partitioned the said lands. Further it is stated that the Government issued Notification in Adilabad District Gazette, vide Gazette No.ADB/158/2008-1, dt.3-7- 2008 and Proc.No.B6/2513/2008 dt.30-7-2008 for the purpose of acquisition of the above said lands for construction of 500 MW Merchant Power Plant by the SCCo Ltd. Srirampur. In the said notification, the petitioner observed that Sy.No.54/A is standing in the name of Thurka Santhamma (respondent No.6), Sy.No.54/B is standing in the name of Thurka Satyanarayana Reddy (respondent No.7) Sy.No.58 is standing in the name of Thurka Satyamma (respondent No.6) and Sy.No.62/B is standing in the name of Rikkula Buchaiah (father of petitioner & respondents No.3 to 6) in patta column and possession is shown in favour of Thurka Satyanarayana (respondent No.7). The said entries are not genuine entries. The respondents No.6 and 7 have got their names recorded in revenue records in respect of the said lands illegally, though they have got no exclusive right or possession over the said lands. As stated supra, the said lands are the undivided joint family properties of the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6. They all are having 1/5th share each. So this petitioner is having 1/5th share in the said lands. Further it is stated that the respondents No.6 and 7 are not exclusively entitled for payment of compensation of amount in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.54/A measuring Ac.3-00, Sy.No.54/B measuring Ac.3-00, Sy.No.58 measuring Ac.3-05 gts., and Sy.No.62/B measuring Ac.6-24 gts. All situated at Gangipally village, except to their 1/5th share. If the entire compensation is paid to them, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss. It is also stated that the petitioner came to know about the Notification on 20-5-2009 and obtained CC of Notification from the office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial on 21-5-2009. Hence, she filed a petitioner under Section 18 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, as required under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act within two months from the date of knowledge of the facts, on 26-5-2009, praying the 1st respondent to pass the orders as follows:- 1) To stop payment of the compensation amount to the respondents No.4 and 5 therein, in respect of the lands bearing Sy.No.54/A measuring Ac.3-00, Sy.No.54/B measuring Ac.3-00, Sy.No.58 measuring Ac.3-05 gts., and Sy.No.62/B measuring Ac.6-24 gts. all situated at Gangipally village. 2) To settle the dispute or to refer the matter to the Court to determine the right of the petitioner over the above- mentioned properties. 3) To deposit the compensation amount before the Civil Court under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act; and 4) Any other reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled be granted. It is also stated that the 1st respondent has not passed any orders so far in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 18 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, without issuing any notice to the petitioner or recording her statement, the 1st respondent has been recording the statements of the respondents No.3 to 7. He is deciding the title issue, though he has no jurisdiction to decide the same. When the petitioner approached the 1st respondent personally and requested him to stop the payment of the compensation by referring the matter to the Civil Court and to deposit the compensation amount in the civil Court till the dispute is decided. The 1st respondent bluntly refused the request of the petitioner stating that she has no manner of right, without deciding the petition filed before him on merits. If the entire compensation amount is paid to the respondents No.6 and 7, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss, hardship, as such the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. The action of the 1st respondent in proposing to pay the entire compensation amount to the respondents No.6 and 7, without deciding the Section 18 application, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, Article 21 and Article 300- A of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court praying for the reliefs specified supra. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is stated that as per the revenue records the following persons are pattedars of suit land situated at Gangipally village: Sl.No. Sy.No. Extent Name of the pattedar Name of the occupant 1. 54/A Ac.3-00 Turka Satyamma, W/o.Satyanarayana TurkaSatyamma, W/o.Satyanarayana 2. 54/B Ac.3-00 Turka Satyanarayana S/o.Raji Reddy Turka Satyanarayana S/o.Raji Reddy 3. 58 Ac.3-05 Turka Satyamma, W/o.Satyanarayana Turka Satyamma, W/o.Satyanarayana 4. 64/B Ac.6-24 Rikkula Buchaiah Turka Satyanarayana S/o.Rajaiah Further it is stated that the General Manager, Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Srirampur Area has filed requisition for acquisition of lands for installaltion of 500 MW Power Plant. Among other lands in Gangipally village of Jaipur Mandal, the land in Sy.No.54/A, 54/B, 58 and 64/B have also been requisitioned. Subsequently after holding preliminary enquiry and based on revenue records this respondent has initiated land acquisition process and submitted proposals to Collector, Adilabad for approval of Notification under Section 4(1) and Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector, Adilabad has approved the Notification under Section 4(1) and Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Proc.No.B6/2513/2008, dt.30-7-2008 and allotted Gazette No.158/2008-1, dt.30-7-2008 for publication in the Gazette. Accordingly, the DN has been published in Gazette No.158/2008-1, dt.30-7-2008. The DN has also been published in two newspapers viz., Eenadu Telugu Daily and the New Indian Express English Daily on 13-8-2008. The same has also been published in the village on 1- 9-2008. Similarly, the Collector, Adilabad has approved the DD under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, vide Proc.No.B6/2513/2008, dt.30-7-2008 and allotted Gazette No.158/2008-2 dt.31-7-2008 publication in the Gazette. Accordingly the DD has been published in Gazette No.158/2008-2 dt.31-7-2008. The DD has also been published in two newspapers viz., Eenadu Telugu Daily on 15-8-2008 and the New Indian Express English Daily on 14-8-2008. The same has also been published in the village on 2-9-2008. The contention of the petitioner is that the entries are not genuine and the respondents No.6 and 7 have got their names recorded in revenue records illegally and the said lands are undivided joint family properties of the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 herein and they are entitled for 1/5th share each. In this regard it is stated that as per Pahani, the land in Sy.No.62/B to an extent of Ac.6.24 only stands patta in the name of Rikkula Buchaiah which is in occupation of respondent No.7. The other Sy.Nos.54/A and 58 to an extent of Ac.3.00 and Ac.3.05 respectively stands patta in the name of respondent No.6. Similarly the land in Sy.No.54/B to an extent of Ac.3-00 stands patta in the name of respondent No.7. It is also stated that notices under Sections 9(1) and (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been issued to all the interested persons and Award enquiry has been conducted on 11-2- 2009. During Award enquiry the respondent No.6 appeared and deposed that she is the pattedar and sole owner of the land in respect of Sy.No.54/A and 58 to an extent of Ac.3-00 and Ac.3-05 and requested for payment of compensation. She also deposed that the land in Sy.No.54 and 62 to an extent of Ac.3-00 and Ac.6-10 has been gifted to her by his father vide Gift Settlement Deed No.2056/2000 dt.28-6-2000. The respondent No.7 also appeared and deposed that he has purchased the land in Sy.No.54/B to an extent of Ac.3-00 from Rikkula Narayana, Rikkula Rajireddy, Rikkula Styanarayana Reddy and the same has been implemented in revenue records vide Mandal Revenue Officer, Jaipur, Proc.No.ROR/Gangipally/3/2002, dt.3.2002 and requested for payment of compensation. The petitioner has filed petition through her Counsel dt.26-5-2009 claiming 1/5th share of compensation in Sy.No.54/A, 54/B, 58 and 62 on the plea that the said Survey Numbers are undivided joint family properties of the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4. The said petition has been brought on record and notices have been issued on 29-6-2009 to attend the enquiry on 10-7-2009. Once again as the petitioner has made an objection on 26- 5-2009 which has been received on 1-6-2009. The Award in this case is not passed so far. After hearing the petition dt.26-5-2009 and verification of records the compensation in respect of the suit lands coming under acquisition will be awarded to the rightful owner of the land. If any dispute noticed with regard to title of the land, the same will be referred to competent Civil Court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for adjudication of title. Further it is stated that after holding detailed enquiry on the petition bearing No.A/1148/2009 and perusing the revenue records, matter will be decided with regard to payment of compensation in respect of the suit lands to the rightful owner or in case if any dispute with regard to title of the land is noticed, in such case, the matter will be referred to competent civil Court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of the title. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by R.6 and R.7, it is stated that Rikkula Buchaiah was the absolute owner and pattedar of lands measuring Ac.0.21 gts., in Sy.No.37, Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.54, Ac.3.18 gts., in Sy.No.58 and land measuring Ac.12.38 in Sy.No.62. The father of the 6th respondent sold some extent of his land to some third parties. They are five sisters. Petitioner is the elder daughter, respondent No.3 is the second daughter, respondent No.4 is the third daughter, respondent No.5 is the fourth daughter and respondent No.6 is the fifth daughter of Late Rikkula Buchaiah. Respondent No.7 is the husband of 6th respondent. As their father has no male issues, he has gifted all his lands to them except respondent No.4. Her father expired on 5-11- 2001 and before his death, he has gifted all his lands to the petitioner, herself, respondent No.3 and 5 and since the date of gift, they are in enjoyment and possession of their respective lands. It is further stated that the writ petitioner was gifted an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0.11 gts., in Sy.No.37/A, Ac.1.29 gts in Sy.No.55/A and land admeasuring Ac.0.33 gts., in Sy.No.56. The respondent No.3 was gifted an extent of land admeasuring Ac.1.04 gts. in Sy.No.57/A and land admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts., in Sy.No.62/B. Further it is stated that the respondent No.5 was gifted an extent of land admeasuring Ac.1.20 gts., in Sy.No.58. The respondent No.6 was gifted an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts., in Sy.No.37/B, land admeasuring Ac.3.00 gts. in Sy.No.54/A, land admeasuring Ac.1.29 gts., in Sy.No.55/B, land admeasuring Ac.0.33 in Sy.No.56/B, land admeasuring Ac.1.25 gts. in Sy.No.58/A and land admeasuring Ac.6.10 gts., in Sy.No.62/B. Respondent No.6 purchased an extent of land admeasuring Ac.1.20 gts., in Sy.No.58 and thus she became absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.3.05 in Sy.No.58 and her name was also mutated in the revenue records. Her husband purchased an extent of land admeasuring Ac.3.00 from her cousin brothers M/s.Rikkula Narayana & Others. Further it is stated that the writ petitioner has sold her extent of land admeasuring Ac.0.11 gts., in Sy.No.37/A and has retained the remaining extent of land. The petitioner has stated that her father was the absolute owner and pattedar of lands in Sy.No.54/A, 54/B, 58 and 62/B only. The petitioner was aware that her father was the absolute owner and pattedar of different survey Nos. and that her father during his lifetime has gifted all his properties to his daughters. Her father gifted all the lands in different survey numbers under registered gift deeds to them and since the date of gift, they are in possession and enjoyment of their extents of lands. Their names are also mutated in all the revenue records. The petitioner now cannot claim that she is 1/5th shareholder in respect of lands in Sy.No.54/A, 54/B, 58 and 62/B only and the petitioner cannot contend before this Court that the entries in the revenue records are not genuine entries. They have mutated their names in the revenue records during the years 2000 and 2001. The petitioner knows all these facts and for the first time after the respondent No.1 initiated land acquisition proceedings, has come with such a false plea that she is the 1/5th share holder and is claiming compensation. The lands of the petitioner which she became owner by virtue of gift deeds are also being acquired under the present notification. It is also stated that there is no dispute with regard to the title of the land and this respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of lands admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts., in Sy.No.37/B, Ac.3.00 gts., in Sy.No.54/A, Ac.1.29 gts., in Sy.No.55/B, Ac.0.33 gts., in Sy.No.56/B, Ac.3.05 gts., in Sy.No.58 and land admeasuring Ac.6.10 gts., in Sy.No.62/B by virtue of registered gift deeds and her name was also mutated in the revenue records and she was also issued pattedar bass books and title deeds. The petitioner has approached this Court by suppressing all material facts and with unclean hands. The petitioner has filed this writ petition only to harass this respondent and in depriving her of enjoyment of her share of amount. 9. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 10. In the light of the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit of R.1 to the effect that if dispute is noticed with regard to the title of the land, the same be referred to the competent Civil Court for adjudication of the title. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition be disposed of directing the competent authority – 1st respondent to satisfy himself relating to this aspect and take appropriate steps in this regard in the event of coming to the conclusion that the same to be decided by a competent Civil Court in accordance with law. Except making the aforesaid observation, no further positive directions as such can be granted in the present writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions specified above. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana August, 2009 smr