IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.3611 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Abdul Rub and two others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Adilabad District and two others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.3611 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Court issued rule nisi on 24-02-2009 and granted interim direction in WPMP No.4705 of 2009. WVMP No.2407 of 2009 was filed by the third respondent to vacate the interim direction aforesaid. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent as well and when the vacate application was taken up for hearing the counsel on record made a request for final disposal of the writ petition and hence, the writ petition is being disposed of finally. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the material placed before this court and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case appropriate directions to be given as prayed for. 3. On the contrary the learned AGP for Land Acquisition had taken this court through the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 and would maintain that all these aspects would be considered at the appropriate stage. The counsel representing third respondent had taken this court through the contents of the counter affidavit filed along with the vacate application and would maintain that in the light of the same no relief prayed for in the writ petition to be granted and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the Counsel and perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the averments made in respective counter affidavits. 5. The writ petitioners filed the present writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in not conducting enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred in short as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) to ascertain the ownership and title of the lands in Sy.Nos.214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 248 and Sy.No.272 to the extent Ac.27.07 gts situated at Ullipitta – Dorli village, Tiryani Mandal, Adilabad District, as arbitrary and illegal and also violative of Articles 14 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations dated 01-03-2008, 14-05-2008 and 28-01-2009 and to pay compensation to the petitioners and to pass such other suitable orders. 6. The case of the writ petitioners is that respondent No.2 as per the directions of respondent No.1 acquired Ac.495.37 gts for public purpose the lands of petitioners and other farmers situated at Ullipitta – Dorli (v) of Thiryani Mandal, Adilabad District for the open cast project of the Singareni Collieries and notification was published vide Lr.No.C/1844/2004 dated 04.2006. Subsequently emergency clause was invoked by respondent No.1 vide proceeding No.B6/2046/2006 dated 08-05-2006 and all the enquiry under Section 5 (A) was dispensed with. Thereafter respondent No.1 issued proceedings No.B6/2046/2006 dated 13-05-2006 under Section 6 of the Act. The land value is fixed at Rs.86,000/- per acre. The Singareni Collieries appears to have deposited the land value with the treasury of 2nd respondent. 7. Further it is stated that no proper enquiry is conducted under Section 11 of the Act more particularly regarding the lands to the extent of Ac.27.07 gts situated in Survey Numbers lands to the extent of Ac.27.07 gts., situated in Sy.Nos.214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 248 and 272 in the village of Ullipitta – Dorli (v) of Tiryani Mandal, Adilabad District. These petitioners have their respective interest in these survey numbers and are claiming compensation as per law. Section 11 of the Act says that RDO has to make enquiry regarding the area of the land, market value of the land and also ascertaining the individual share of the respective owners and also to disburse the compensation in pursuance of his enquiry findings. So far no such enquiry is conducted and the respective shares of these petitioners are not fixed, whereas other land- owners in the village whose lands have been acquired are paid compensation. 8. Further it is stated that these petitioners have submitted a joint application to the Land Acquisition Officer – respondent No.2 on 28-01-2009 and the same is pending before the respondent No.2. Regarding these lands the 3rd respondent also submitted two applications firstly on 01-03-2008 and secondly on 14-05-2008 for the apportionment of their respective shares and to disburse the compensation for the lands acquired. 9. It is also stated that the enquiry under Section 11 is related to the following question. Petitioners herein and respondent No.3 are cousin brothers. Petitioners 1 to 3 are brothers and are sons of late Mr.Shaik Meera. Respondent No.3 is son of late Shaik Ahmed. The father of petitioners and the father of respondent No.3 were own brothers and were the sons of late Sri Shaik Abbas Ali who was the paternal grand father of the petitioners and respondent No.3. 10. It is also stated that the maternal grand father of these petitioners late Sri Mahaboob Ali, S/o.Rahaman gifted some lands to their father i.e., late Sri Shaik Meera. The particulars of these gifted lands are Sy.Nos.214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 248 and 272 extent of Ac.27.07 gts., in the village of Ullipitta – Dorli (v) of Tiryani mandal, Adilabad District. However, the father of the petitioners and their junior paternal uncle i.e., late Sri Shaik Ahmed lived in as a joint family and held their properties together and jointly shared the income and expenditure arising out of the lands. 11. Further it is stated that the father of the petitioners was a Government Servant and he lived at various places wherever he was posted and died long back and some how the title of these lands gifted by their maternal grand father were shown in the name of his junior paternal uncle late Sri Shaik Ahmed i.e., the father of respondent No.3. This change was not noticed by the father of the petitioners during his lifetime. The petitioners herein also did not notice this wrong entry in the revenue record as they are cultivating the lands and deriving crops and other incomes from these lands. 12. It is also stated that the father of respondent No.3 i.e., Sri Shaik Ahmed died on 08-04-1977. After his demise the respondent No.3 was also not residing in their village and he was living along with his son in North India who was an army man. Moreover respondent No.3 never objected the cultivation of petitioners of these lands. Under these circumstances they could not verify the title of these lands. 13. Further it is stated that these petitioners have a right to submit the representation before the respondent No.2 for the apportionment of their share in the lands and also their share of compensation. The respondent No.2 is under obligation to consider their representation and to pass appropriate orders. As such these petitioners have submitted a representation dated 28-01-2009. Similar representations were submitted by respondent No.3 firstly on 01-03-2008 and secondly on 14-05-2008 and all these applications are pending before respondent No.2. Thus, the respondent No.2 failed to discharge the duty cast upon under Section 11 of the Act. 14. Further it is stated that the respondent No.3 also admitted vide his applications dated 01-03-2008 and 14-05-2008 that these petitioners have legitimate share along with him in the above mentioned lands and he also requested respondent No.2 to disburse the compensation to all the share holders in this land. Respondent No.3 also admitted in his application dated 01-03-2008 that these lands were acquired by his senior paternal uncle i.e., late Sri Shaik Meera and in the normal course of joint family affairs these lands were shown in the name of late Sri Shaik Ahmed. In the circumstances the present writ petition had been filed. 15. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is averred that main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents-authorities without conducting any proper enquiry and also without deciding the rights of the petitioners are contemplating to disburse the compensation amount in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioners further stated that they are the rightful owners of the lands under acquisition and hence before passing any award, the respondents-authorities shall afford them with ample opportunity to put forth their case. 16. Further it is stated that the lands under acquisition are sought to be acquired for the purpose of formation of Open Cost Project for Singareni Collieries. From the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the respondents-authorities scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the Act by issuing the notices at all relevant stages to all the interested persons including the petitioners and the 3rd respondent. In response to the notices, the petitioners as well as 3rd respondent appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and requested to pay the compensation to them. It is also relevant to point out that notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act and award enquiry notices were duly served on the petitioners as well as third respondent asking them to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, they appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on different dates. In this case, the award enquiry was conducted on 07-05-2009, 14-05-2009, 21-05-2009 and 25-09-2009. Both the petitioners and 3rd respondent appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer. However, as on today, no award was passed. The just and reasonable compensation will be paid to the eligible person according to their entitlement. It is further stated that while passing the award, the Land Acquisition Officer will certainly consider the documentary proof submitted by the petitioners and the 3rd respondent about their entitlement and the petitioners now cannot have grievance that the respondents-authorities are going to disburse the compensation amount in favour of the 3rd respondent. If at all the petitioners are eligible, their cases will be considered accordingly by passing appropriate award in their favour. If they fail to establish their right over the lands under acquisition, the compensation will be paid to the eligible persons in accordance with law. 17. Further it is stated that the acquired lands are situated in schedule notified village. The demised pattedar was Non-tribal and nominal pattedar, whereas other than pattedars, Non-tribals are in adverse possession also are bona fide cultivators which attracts the provisions of APSLTR Act, 1959 which aspect has to be dealt with in appropriate manner. 18. Further specific stand had been taken that in view of the fact that no award had been passed so far, the contention of the petitioners that the official respondents are going to disburse the compensation amount in favour of the 3rd respondent does not arise at all. Since the award is not passed, the other documents mentioned in the writ affidavit need not be traversed in this counter affidavit. 19. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent it is stated that the father of the 3rd respondent late Shaik Ahmed was the original pattedar and possessor of the lands in Sy.Nos.214, 216, 217, 218, 219 and 248 total to an extent of Ac.23.17 gts., situated at Ullipitta Dorli village, Tiryani mandal, Adilabad District. The Revenue Department also issued the sethwar showing his father as pattedar and Khatadar of the lands mentioned above. During the life time of his father he developed the lands by spending huge amount and made them fertile. Due to their misfortune his father expired on 08-04-1997 leaving behind the 3rd respondent and his mother as his legal heirs. After the death of his father, as legal heirs, he and his mother are enjoying the lands as owners and pattedars. While so, the respondents issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in the year 2006 for the purpose of acquisition land in their village for formation of open cast project by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The 1st respondent also issued the proceedings on 08-05-2006 invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act to dispense with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued Section 6 declaration on 13-05-2006. Thereafter the award had been passed fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.86,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the Singareni Collieries Company Limited had deposited the compensation into the treasury of the 2nd respondent on 13-07-2007 and it is doing its operations in their lands. Though the 3rd respondent had made number of representations to the 2nd respondent his requests became futile. Therefore, having no other option the 3rd respondent had filed W.P.No.28814/2008 and this court disposed of the same on 18-03-2009 directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders with regard to payment of compensation. But so far, the Land Acquisition Officer had not passed any orders for payment of compensation. 20. Further it is stated that that to his utter surprise the 3rd respondent had received a notice in the present writ petition. The writ petitioners have nothing to do with the lands acquired by the respondents 1 and 2 and they have no locus to claim any share in the compensation amount. Therefore, on the threshold itself the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent is not aware of the alleged application submitted by the petitioners to the 2nd respondent on 28-01-2009. The petitioners are not at all related to the lands in Sy.No.214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 248 and 272 situated at Ullipitta Dorli village of Tiryani Mandal, Adilabad District. The respondents 1 and 2 had acquired their land to an extent of Ac.23.17 gts., for the open caste project of the Singareni Collieries and he was not aware of the exact extent of the lands of others acquired. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and declarations under Sections 17 (4) and 6 of the Act had been issued and after conducting enquiry the 1st respondent passed award by fixing the land value @ Rs.86,000/- per acre. During the award enquiry the writ petitioners did not participate. If really the petitioners are interested in the lands acquired by the respondents 1 and 2 definitely they would have participated in the award enquiry and they would have filed their objections. Now after completion of the entire process the petitioners filed the application with false and baseless allegations with evil intention to grab the compensation mount. The petitioners are not at all related to the lands in question and have nothing to do with the lands. The petitioners have no right or title to claim share in the compensation amount. 22. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent is not aware of the applications allegedly submitted by the petitioners to the 2nd respondent on various dates. The petitioners wanted to conduct the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act belatedly. After conducting the enquiry only the respondents 1 and 2 passed the award long back fixing the land value and in turn the Singarent Collieries Company Limited already deposited the amount with the 2nd respondent. The petitioners or their father had no share in these lands and in the entire revenue records the name of the father of the 3rd respondent is shown as pattedar and hence the claim of the petitioners that the property is the joint property cannot be considered. The father of the 3rd respondent and the father of the petitioners never lived together and hence the property cannot be said to be the joint family property. Several further averments also had been made in para Nos.5 and 6 of the counter affidavit as well. 23. On a careful analysis of the respective stands taken in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 and counter affidavit of respondent No.3, this court is of the opinion that the 3rd respondent had taken slightly different stand whereas the 2nd respondent had taken a specific stand that inasmuch as no award has been passed, the contention of the writ petitioners that official respondents are going to disburse the compensation in favour of the 3rd respondent would not arise at all. It is needless to say that when several claims are there the official respondents are expected to look into the documents which may be produced by the respective parties while putting forth their claims relating to the payment of compensation and take appropriate decision in this regard. In the light of the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 this court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition be disposed of with the following directions: This court does hope that the official respondents will look into the grievances of the respective claimants receiving all the documentary proof, if any, placed by the parties and take appropriate decision in this regard. Let the official respondents 1 and 2 take into consideration the documents which may be placed by the petitioners as well in this regard and take appropriate decision in this regard as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J October 5, 2009. PN