THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9308 of 2005 March 25, 2011 Between: Dharavat Ramulu, S/o.late Dhanya ... Petitioner And The Land Acquisition Officer/Special Deputy Collector, (Kothagudem Fertiliser Factory), Kinnerasani Project, Palvancha, Khammam District And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9308 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner’s father, late Dharavat Dhanya, was statedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.1.01 guntas in S.No.737 situated at Palvancha Village. He enjoyed the property from 1928 till his death in 1974. After his death, petitioner, his mother and brothers inherited the property. Allegedly, they enjoyed the property till 1995. It appears that on 25.5.1995 petitioner’s brothers executed relinquishment deed in his favour as a result of which the petitioner became absolute owner and possessor of the land. In 2001, the subordinate officials of respondents 3 and 4 allegedly prevented the petitioner from raising fencing to the land. He then filed O.S.No.82 of 001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, for declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction. The defendants therein filed written statement stating that the land was acquired by the first respondent herein under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) under Award No.2586/1962 dated 07.9.1962. It was also urged that an amount of ` 5,161/- was paid to the owner of the land, by name, Mohd. Dilawar Khan. The petitioner would contend that the averment in the written statement came as surprise to him. In the revenue records and pahanis till 2003-2004, name of the petitioner’s father was shown as pattadar. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.560 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem against the sons/heirs of Dilawar Khan for declaration of title and consequential removal of name of late Dilawar Khan in the pahanis. The said suit was decreed on 26.9.1998 declaring the petitioner as owner and possessor of the land in respect of the property comprised in S.No.737. The petitioner would, therefore, contend that the Award dated 07.9.1962 is null and void, that the same was passed showing the name of an unconnected person and without notice to the petitioner. Therefore he filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the said award as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and not binding on the petitioner. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha – fourth respondent herein; filed the counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 4. It is contended that the Public Works Department sent a requisition to the then Special Deputy Collector, Kothagudem for acquiring lands admeasuring Acs.8.20 guntas in S.Nos.735, 736 and 737 including Acs.1.01 guntas in S.No.737. After inspecting the lands and the revenue records, proposals for draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were submitted to the Government through the Collector. The land in question stood in the name of original pattadar, Mohd. Dilawar Khan. For publication of the notifications, award enquiry was conducted during which Dilawar Khan appeared and deposed that he is the owner having purchased the land under registered document. After the enquiry, award was passed on 07.9.1962. The pattadar received the compensation. The petitioner filed O.S.No.560 of 1995 for substitution of his name in the pahanis by striking out the name of Dilawar Khan. The petitioner obtained collusive decree. The Executive Engineer then filed O.S.No.199 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem challenging the decree in O.S.No.560 of 1995 dated 24.9.1998. Subsequently the petitioner filed O.S.No.82 of 2001 and obtained orders of status quo. In C.M.A.No.483 of 2002 filed against the order dated 05.1.2002 in I.A.No.617 of 2001 in O.S.No.82 of 2001, the High Court modified the status quo order granted by the Court below and permitted the Executive Engineer to construct compound wall. Accordingly a compound wall was constructed. In the mean while, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23173 of 1999, W.P.No.19448 of 2000, W.P.No.19614 of 2000 and W.P.No.19441 of 2001. The W.P.No.23173 of 1999 was dismissed on 15.9.2000 and W.P.No.19448 of 2000 was disposed of on 08.12.2000 with a direction to conduct survey in respect of the land in S.No.737. The other writ petition being W.P.No.19614 of 2000 was dismissed on 19.4.2001. Yet again the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the award. The answering respondent denied the allegations that the petitioner is owner of the land, and contends that the Executive Engineer has constructed compound wall and that the petitioner is not pattadar of the land. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit denying various counter averments. He also denied the allegation that the petitioner filed various writ petitions referred to in the counter affidavit. He further stated that W.P.Nos.23173 of 1999 and W.P.No.19614 of 2000 were filed by one B.Devja in respect of the land in S.No.737. The petitioner further contends that the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial Court reported that the land is vacant land not covered by any structures. The matter was heard on 24.2.2011 and 10.3.2011. As there is a serious dispute with regard to the passing of the award in 1962 and the petitioner contends that the award is forged and fabricated, this Court directed the Government Pleader to produce the records. The matter is heard again today. The Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stick to their position as per the pleadings. The Government Pleader has placed before this Court the certified copies of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued way back in 1962. He has also placed before this Court the certified copy of the award No.2586, dated 07.9.1962. He would urge that the original award was marked as Ex.B8 in O.S.No.82 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and, therefore, original could not be produced. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the suit filed by the petitioner being O.S.No.82 of 2001 has been dismissed on 01.5.2008 aggrieved by which the petitioner filed appeal in A.S. No.86 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kothagudem. As rightly pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court framed an issue as to whether the subject property is acquired by the Government for construction of Kinnerasani Project though Award No.2586/1962, dated 07.9.1962. As there is a serious dispute on this question and also with regard to the possession of the land, any interference by this Court after long lapse of more than 40 years would not be proper. The petitioner has already availed common law remedy. His suit was dismissed and he filed the appeal. Therefore he can always plead all these issues in the civil Court. If it is held that an award has been passed under Section 11 of the Act and possession is taken, the property shall vest absolutely in the Government. But if it is proved that the award was not passed, other consideration may arise. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is moving an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for filing additional documents. It is for the first appellate Court can always consider the said application. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file all documents, if they are not already marked in the trial Court. In view of this, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March 25, 2011 YS