IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.1626 of 2009 Between: Gandham Aseerwadham ..... PETITIONER AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, Bhadrachalam, Unit-1, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and five others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court issued rule nisi on 03-02-2009 and in W.P.M.P.No.2061 of 2009 on 03-02-2009 this court made the following order: “There shall be interim direction to the respondents, not to disburse the subject compensation amount either to the petitioner or to the respondents until further orders.” W.V.M.P.No.2572 of 2009 is filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not referring the matter to Civil Court under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act in spite of petitioner’s objection petition dated 29- 01-2009 covered under 4(1) Notification No.48/2008 dated 15-05- 2008 published in Vaartha Daily Paper dated 31-05-2008 in respect of the petitioner’s land in question situated in Sy.No.106/2, an extent of Hec.0-91 Acs. and 30/1 to an extent of Hec.2-31 Acs total Hec.3-22 Acres of Tekulaboru village of Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District and trying to pay the compensation amouns of land in question in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 6, is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the first respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court by duly depositing the entire compensation amount before the Civil Court in respect of the petitioner’s land in question and pass such other suitable orders. It is stated that the writ petitioner and his two brothers are the joint family members and they are occupied the estate lands and by clearing the bushes in the said land and they are doing cultivation operations by developing the said lands in question for the past seven decades. While it being so, after the death of father of the petitioner Gandham Appaiah, his brother Gandham Narsimham look after the joint family property as a Kartha of joint family and all are doing agricultural operations in the said land in question. While it being so, being a Kartha of joint family his father’s brother Gandham Narsimham applied for ryotwari patta under Regulation 2 of 1970. The then Settlement Officer granted ryotwari patta in S.R.No.10316/1977 dated 22-02-1980 and they all are doing agricultural operations in the said land all these years. While it being so, in the year 1984 the said Gandham Narsimham died. Thereafter they are in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. Thereafter the 3rd brother of father of the petitioner by name Gandham Yakobu is also died. Now the entire property is under the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner all these years in respect of the land in question. While it being so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh wanted to acquire the lands for the purpose of construction of Polavaram Dam, in that connection the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Land Acquisition proceedings by way of issuing 4 (1) Notification No.48 of 2008 dated 15-05-2008 published in daily Vaartha Newspaper on 31-05- 2008 by showing the name of Gandham Yakobu, S/o.Appaiah in respect of the lands in question The revenue authorities without proper verification high handedly entered the name of Yakobu in respect of the patta lands in question contrary to the patta granted by the authorities. In fact Gandham Appaiah and Gandham Narsimham and Gandham Yakobu are brothers and they are sons of Somaiah and it is proved that the patta granted by the then Settlement Officer in the name of Gandham Narsimham. Hence, printing the name of Yakobu S/o.Appaiah is false and such a person is not available on record. In that circumstances the petitioner approached the first respondent by way of submitting a representation raising objections to refer the matter to Civil Court under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act. The said representation dated 29-01-2009 was it had over to the first respondent by hand and also sent the said copy of the representation by certificate of posting on 30-01-2009 itself to the first respondent with a request not to issue any cheques in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 and refer the matter to Civil Court by duly depositing the amounts before the Civil Court. It is stated that the 1st respondent is high handedly without conducting proper award enquiry going to pay the compensation amount in favour of the respondents herein by way of issuing cheques in their favour. The said cheques were drawn in the Bank of Cooperative Society Bank, Kunavaram. As on today the first respondent did not issue any cheques in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in respect of the compensation of the lands in question, if once the amounts are released by the first respondent in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 the petitioner would be suffered irreparable loss and injury and the petitioner will not able to recover the said amounts from them. In the counter-affidavit the respondent No.4 had taken specific stand that the petitioner filed this writ petition only with a view to obtain wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to them. The petitioner has no manner of right, title, possession or interest whatsoever over the lands held by the father of 4th respondent late Gandham Yakobu. The petitioner has no locus-standi to question the action of the first respondent in not referring the matter to Civil Court under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act in spite of his objection petition dated 29-01-2009 in respect of the lands in question. It is also stated that the father of the 4th respondent late Gandham Yakobu is not having any lands much less the subject lands at Tekulaboru village of Kunavaram Mandal. Therefore, the question of his enjoyment or the alleged enjoyment of the joint family members over the alleged lands at Tekulaboru village of Kunavaram mandal, and their alleged acquisition by the 1st respondent under Notification No.48/2008 dated 15-05-2008 does not arise. The 4th respondent further stated that, in any erstwhile Estate the acquisition of the land can be allowed by way of obtaining patta from the erstwhile Estate Authorities, but not by way of occupation and by clearing bushes etc., as contended by the petitioner. Further it is stated that the father of 4th respondent is having agricultural lands in Re-Survey No.106/1 measuring Hec.0-91 and Re-Survey No.30/1 measuring extent of Hec.2-32 total measuring Hec.3-22 acres situated at Kunavaram village of Kunavaram mandal, and the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam granted ryotwari patta in favour of the father of 4th respondent by his order dated 24-06-1999 in Case No.10316 in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 2/1970 and later the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kunavaram exercising his powers as the Recording Authority under the provisions of Record of Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Act and the rules made there under, issued ryot pass book and title deed bearing No.U38307 against patta No.486. Thus, except the father of 4th respondent viz., late Gandham Yakobu none else, including the petitioner or any other, have any right, title, possession or interest whatsoever over the said lands. It is also averred that the contentions of the petitioner are vague, ambiguous and self-contradictory as one way he contends that, Gandham Appaiah and Gandham Narasimham are brothers and on the other hand in the same paragraph contends that, Gandham Appaiah, Gandham Narasimham, and the father of 4th respondent viz., Gandham Yakobu are brothers and sons of Somaiah. Therefore the 4th respondent stated that the pleadings of the petitioner itself are self-explanatory and sufficient to draw an inference that, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, not only with false and untenable pleas but also without the knowledge of material facts, the alleged relationships, and the very location of the lands owned and possessed by Gandham Yakobu. Thus the petitioner deliberately misrepresented the facts and obtained the interim direction dated 03-02-2009 in W.P.M.P.No.2061 of 2009 from this court with the dishonest intention and for his speculative needs. It is also stated that in fact the petitioner, respondent No.3 and the father of respondent No.4 Gandham Yakobu are natural brothers and sons of late Appaiah. Gandham Appaiah is their grand father and he is the son of late Ramaiah. Whereas Gandham Narasimham is admittedly son of Gandham Somaiah. Both Gandham Somaiah and Gandham Ramaiah are not natural brothers and even their fathers also not from any common ancestor and are very distant in relationship and might be their forefathers, may be agnates. Further, Gandham Appaiah, S/o.Ramaiah was native and resident of Velerupadu village, whereas Gandham Narasimham, S/o.Somaiah was native and resident of Kunavaram village. The 4th respondent stated that, the property left over by their grand father late Gandham Appaiah was succeeded by his sons viz., the petitioner, respondent No.3 and father of 4th respondent late Gandham Yakobu. As the lands fell to the share of their father is not sufficient to ekeout the livelihood of their family, at the request of Gandham Narasimham, who is not having any children went to Kunavaram to look after the cultivation of his lands at Kunavaram village, and due to which the aid Gandham Narasimham, S/o.Somaiah developed love and affection upon their father late Gandham Yakobu and consequently he used to treat their father as his foster son and their father also reciprocated the same with him, in consideration of the said love and affection, the said Gandham Narasimham disclosed to the villagers that their father is the successor of him in respect of his assets and liabilities. Accordingly, after the death of Gandham Narasimham, their father performed his obsequies with the status as his foster son and consequently he succeeded the assets and liabilities of the said Gandham Narasimham, which includes the lands at Kunavaram village. They further submit that, the lands at Kunavaram village are part of the Kunavaram Zamin Estate, which were acquired by the said Gandham Narasimham and his mother Gandham Pitchi by way of obtaining pattas from the erstwhile Estate Authorities. These facts are appreciated by the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam while granting ryotwari patta in favour of the father of 4th respondent, under order dated 24-06-1999 and considered his father as the L.R. of Gandham Narasimham. They submit that, ever since 1984 till the death of the father of 4th respondent viz., Gandham Yakobu he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said lands at Kunavaram as the absolute owner and pattedar, and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kunavaram also granted ryot pass book and title deed in his favour. After the death of their father, the mother of 4th respondent Smt. Gandham Sugunamma is looking after the cultivation and enjoyment and the 1st respondent also considered the said fact during the award enquiry and accordingly he passed the award in her favour. Further it is stated that the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein, developed greedy eye upon the family of 4th respondent, for the reason that their family is getting more compensation than the compensation that may be received by them in respect of the joint family property situated at Velerupadu village and approached their mother and demanded each equal share in the lands situated at Kunavaram village stands in the name of the father of 4th respondent. As their efforts became futile the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein colluded together, filed the writ petition through the petitioner and obtained interim direction as stated supra by misrepresenting all the facts and more particularly, without impleading their mother Smt. Gandham Sugunamma as necessary party and doing all efforts of bargaining for extracting part of the compensation amount payable by the 1st respondent to his mother. The 4th respondent therefore, stated that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party and hence, liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that the petitioner is not having any manner of right, title, possession or interest in the said lands and hence, there is no need of referring the matter to Civil Court. This court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the respective stands taken by the parties. It is stated that the petitioner filed objections dated 29-01-2009 relating to this aspect before the first respondent. Let the first respondent consider the objections filed by the petitioner dated 29-01-2009, if already such objections had been filed and take appropriate decision in this regard within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time the compensation amount shall not be disbursed in favour of any of the parties. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J October 27, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.1626 of 2009 October 27, 2009