THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:4660 OF 2006 Dated: 23.12.2009 Between: 1. Harbans Kaur and others ..Petitioners And 1. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:4660 OF 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the land acquisition officer) to refer the award No:B1/104/2005, dated 30.12.2005 to the Competent Civil Court to determine the adequate compensation and settle the disputed claims of the petitioners and respondents-2 to 8 regarding ownership of the acquired property under award and eligibility for compensation among the rival claimants as contemplated under the provisions of sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by declaring the Letter No:B1/104/2005, dated 14.2.2006 of the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. The case of the petitioners is that they are the claimants in award No:B1/104/2005, dated 31.12.2005 under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of 3551 square yards in premises No:5-9-96 situated in Nampally village and mandal, Hyderabad District. Pursuant to the draft notification dated 30.5.2005 and draft declaration dated 3.10.2005, the said land which was in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners was taken over under a panchanama dated 17.11.2005. The petitioners have participated in the award enquiry and claimed compensation at Rs.35,000/- per square yard for the land, Rs.20 lakhs for the structures, Rs.25,000/- towards trees, Rs.2 lakhs towards the well and Rs.10 lakhs towards damages of business of motor driving school. In support of their claim, the 5th petitioner had given a statement and produced documentary evidence in particular the rental deed obtained by them from various tenants as owners of the acquired property, the rental agreement obtained from Messrs.Ad-Age and etc. showing that the petitioners have exercised their rights as absolute owners over the property. Surprisingly, none of the rental deeds and agreements are referred to in the award. It is only the telephone bills and electricity bills that are mentioned in the award which would establish the possession of the petitioners-claimants over the property. The Land acquisition officer had ignored the claims of the petitioners as owners of the property. Basing on the agreement and lease deed produced by the petitioners, they were treated as tenants and the said presumption is absolutely false. Coming to the possession, though there is no dispute that the Land Acquisition Officer came to the conclusion that mere possession does not confirm title over the property, in the matter of land acquisition, even the persons in possession of the property are entitled for compensation, as they are dispossessed under the statute. The quantum of amount awarded is very less when compared to the potentiality of the land and its location and therefore, the matter is to be referred to the competent civil Court under the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also the further case of the petitioners that out of total extent of 3551 square yards of land acquired, respondents-2 to 7 are having a decree of a competent Civil Court in their favour for 1000 square yards only and the remaining 2551 square yards is not the subject matter of any dispute in any Court. The entire land which is now acquired is taken from the possession of the petitioners only. It is their further case that the Land acquisition officer is not competent to decide the rival claims of parties and decide their rights and title over the land acquired and that respondents-2 to 7 are not entitled for compensation. When there is a dispute as to the apportionment of compensation for any part of it, the land acquisition officer has to refer the dispute to a competent Civil Court as contemplated under the provisions of section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. On the objections filed by the petitioners, the impugned memo was issued by the land acquisition officer in Lr.No:B1/104/05, dated 14.2.2006. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. On behalf of unofficial respondents, no counter is filed. The 1st respondent has only filed the counter. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have substantial interest in the land acquired and they are entitled for the amount of compensation. When there is a dispute as to the apportionment of compensation, the land acquisition officer has to refer the dispute to a competent Civil Court. It is further contended that on 8.2.2006, the petitioners have filed detainled objections under section 18 and 30 of the Land acquisition Act. But, without considering the same, the land acquisition officer has issued the impugned memo dated 14.2.2006. It is further submitted that the land acquisition officer is not empowered to adjudicate the matter of title in the light of provisions of section 30 of the Act, which contemplates the power of the Civil Courts to adjudicate the dispute as to the title. Therefore, the impugned memo is liable to be set aside. Before going into the merits of the case, it is relevant to go through the contents of the impugned memo, which reads as under: “Adverting to your petition dated 8.2.2006, it is informed that your petition requesting to refer the land acquisition case under section 18and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court for adjudication of title and for high compensation cannot be entertained as your claims and objections are not tenable. The same is discussed in the award and a copy of which is received by you. It is therefore informed accordingly. “ Having aggrieved by the award, the petitioners have filed a petition on 8.2.2006 stating that the land acquisition officer is not competent to decide the rival claims and decide their rights and title over the land acquired and therefore, the matter may be referred to a competent civil Court under sections 18 and 30 of the land acquisition Act. On the said petition, the above impugned memo has been issued. A perusal of the impugned memo wherein the land acquisition officer has simply mentioned that the petition of the petitioners requesting to refer the land acquisition case under section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court for adjudication of title and for higher compensation cannot be entertained, makes it crystal clear that the same has been issued mechanically without application of the mind as well as the provisions of the land Acquisition Act. On this count alone, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it a fit case wherein the impugned memo has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned memo in Lr.No:B1/104/2005, dated 14.2.2006 and remitting the same back to the land acquisition officer to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 23.12.2009 gurc. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:4660 OF 2006 Dated 23RD DECEMBER,2009.