*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 208 of 2006 % 10.09.2008 Between: # Moinunnisa Begum, W/o. Late Nawab Khaderuddin Ali Khan, R/o. Shams Manzil, Paradise, Secunderabad. …Petitioner And $ Special Deputy Collector (LA), for International Airport at Shamsabad. Ranga Reddy District and others. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri M.A.Bari ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: G.P. for Land Acquisition < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 208 of 2006 Between: Moinunnisa Begum, W/o. Late Nawab Khaderuddin Ali Khan, R/o. Shams Manzil, Paradise, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Special Deputy Collector (LA), for International Airport at Shamsabad. Ranga Reddy District. 2 Chief Commissioner Land Administration (Court of Wards), Having the office at Collectrate Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 District Collector Ranga Reddy District, Having the Office at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to pass an order or directionmore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mdnamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction directing the Respondents No.1 to call for the cheque for the amount of compensation for the lands acquired in Proc.No. B/4/2003 dated 8-12-2005 fromt he respondent No.2 and to deposit under Section 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act in the court to which the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act lies and direct the respondent No.2 return the said cheque to the respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law by quashing the direction given by the 1st respondent in his Award in Proc.No. B/4/2003 dated 8-12-2005 and directing the claimants to approach the Respondent No.2 to recieve the compensation, through the notice No. B/4/2003 dated 16-12-2005 being illegal, without any jurisdiction and against the provisions of the land Acquisition Act and costs be awarded and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper inthe interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.A.BARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 208 of 2006 ORDER: An extent of Ac.31.30 guntas of land in Survey Nos.204 to 211 of Khajaguda Village was notiﬁed for acquisition, for the purpose of International Airport at Shamshabad, through a notiﬁcation, dated 29.04.2004, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) by the 3rd respondent. The grand mother of the petitioner, by name Kulsum Begum, was shown as the owner. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on 14.05.2004. An errata was published on 29.04.2004. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (Court of Wards), 2nd respondent herein, was added as a person interested. Award enquiry was conducted and ultimately, the 1 st respondent passed an award, dated 08.12.2005. Apart from private individuals, such as Mohd Sirajuddin Khan, Smt. Yousufunissa Begum, Asifunnisa Begum, 2nd respondent also submitted claim statements. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it was pleaded that the acquired land was notiﬁed under Section 13 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli (for short ‘the Wards Act’). In the award, dated 08.12.2005, the 1st respondent directed that the amount be deposited with the 2nd respondent, subject to the claims of various individuals. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the award. She contends that even assuming that there is any rival claim on behalf of various persons, including the 2nd respondent, the only course open to the 1st respondent was to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that the land in question was brought under the administration of the 2nd respondent, through a notiﬁcation, dated 29.01.1961 under Section 13 of the Wards Act. It is pleaded that once the land was under the administration of the 2nd respondent, the compensation derived out of it shall also be subjected to the same arrangement and any claims have to be determined in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It is also pleaded that the Court, to which, reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act can be made, does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the claims in respect of the lands brought under the control of Court of Wards. Heard Sri M.A.Bari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. There is no dispute that the land was notiﬁed for acquisition for the purpose of Airport. The petitioner laid claim for compensation as one of the legal heirs of the notiﬁed owners. Certain other claims were also submitted before the 1st respondent. Had it been a case, where the land was not subjected to administration by any Agency or Authority, and the claim was made by private individuals, the only alternative for the 1st respondent would have been to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act. In the instant case, undisputedly the land was brought under the purview of the Court of Wards, 2nd respondent herein, through notiﬁcation, dated 29.01.1961, published under Section 13 of the Wards Act. With that, the land becomes the subject matter of administration and no individual can claim absolute or partial rights vis-à-vis such land. A person, who is recognized as Ward, can only claim beneﬁt for maintenance etc., as provided for under the Wards Act. The occasion for the 1st respondent to refer the claim of the petitioner and others to a Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act would have arisen, if only the land was taken away from the purview of the 2nd respondent. As long as such a step is not taken, neither the petitioner nor any other individual can claim absolute rights for the acquired land in its entirety or part. Further, the 2nd respondent cannot be treated as a rival claimant, so that he can be made to defend himself in a reference under Section 30 of the Act. There cannot be any rival claim between a Ward, the one hand, and the administrator, on the other. If the petitioner is so advised, she has to work out her remedies vis-à-vis the 2nd respondent, and thereafter, lay claim for compensation, that was awarded for the land, including rights under the Act. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to workout her remedies vis-à-vis the notiﬁcation, dated 29.01.1961, issued under Section 13 of the Wards Act, in respect of the acquired land, and to pursue other remedies available to her in law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 10.09.2008 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 208 of 2006 Date: 10.09.2008 JSU