IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 21276 of 1999 Between: 1 Dr.P.Ethirajulu S/o Late P.C.M.Naidu Plot No.62, Ravindranagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76. 2 P.Padmavathi W/o Ethirajulu, Plot No.62, Ravindranagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76. .....PETITIONERS AND 1 The Dist.Collector (LAC) Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 3 P.Chandrasekhar S/o Late P.Ramanna, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in not referring the matter to Civil Court to resolve the dispute and contemplating to pay the compensation to the 3rd respondent in respect of land in S.No.1019 and 1020 of Chinnatippasamudram village, Madanapalli Mandal as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, malafide and opposed to law and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to refer the matter to Civil Court for adjudication of the matter. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI S.S.BHATT The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not referring the matter to the Civil Court to resolve the dispute and contemplating to pay the compensation to the 3rd respondent in respect of land in S.No.1019 and 1020 of Chinnatippasamudram village, Madanapalli Mandalam, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to refer the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the matter. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the husband and wife respectively. The 1st petitioner-husband has filed an affidavit in support of the above writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that his father-in-law Sri Pogaku Subbana and his brothers Pogaku Ramanna and Pogaku Lakshmipathi jointly purchased agricultural lands bearing S.No.1019 and 1020 admeasuring Ac.10.17 cents. They were living together and the property was purchased in the name of Pogaku Ramanna. Similarly, the other properties owned by the family were also treated as joint properties. Pogaku Ramanna who is the father of the 3rd respondent has no independent income and the property was purchased with the family funds. Thereafter, the said brothers were enjoying their respective 1/3rd share in the properties after the oral partition. Subsequently, the property that fell to the share of Pogaku Lakshmipathi, was purchased by the said Pogaku Ramanna and thus, he became the owner of 2/3rd share. While so, Pogaku Subbanna who was continuing his possession in 1/3rd share of the properties, executed a registered gift deed in favour of his son-in-law-the 1st petitioner and his daughter-the 2nd petitioner on 21-08-1986. Thereafter, when the 1st petitioner applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer for transfer of patta in their favour, he caused enquiry into the matter and issued pass book bearing No:330183 in his favour with patta No.1183. It is his further case that the 3rd respondent with a fraudulent intention to grab the property filed an objection petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer claiming to be the owner of the property. During the enquiry, the 1st petitioner filed all the relevant documents before the Mandal Revenue Officer to prove his ownership and possession on the land. The 3rd respondent himself and his father filed declarations under the Land Reforms Act wherein it was clearly mentioned that the subject property belongs to 1st petitioner’s brother-in-law Pogaku Satyanarayana. The said Pogaku Satyanarayana also gave an affidavit stating that the land was gifted to the petitioners. Further, the father of the 3rd respondent himself wrote a letter to the 1st petitioner way-back in the year 1986 asking the 1st petitioner to get the land, which is in the possession of the 1st petitioner for the last 40 years, demarcated. It is his further case that till the pass book was issued to the 1st petitioner and the demise of both Sri P.Ramanna and Sri P.Subbanna who were the proper persons to speak as to the entitlement of the property, nobody has claimed the property belonging to the share of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd respondent being local person used pressure on the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer without looking into the documentary evidence submitted by the 1st petitioner had passed an order on 25.7.1996 cancelling the patta granted in favour of the 1st petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the 1st petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn rejected the appeal of the 1st petitioner as well as the case of the respondent in his proceedings D.Dis/6603/96 dated 07-12-1997 and directed them to approach the Civil Court to resolve the dispute. Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the status quo to be maintained on the ground that the land is in possession and enjoyment of the 1st petitioner. Then the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and the same is pending before the Joint Collector. It is his further case that in the meantime, the Government of A.P. issued notification on 24-11-1997 and it was published on 6-12-1997 proposing to acquire the land for the purpose of constructing houses to the weaker sections. Since the Revenue Officials have passed illegal orders, their names were not mentioned in 4 (1) notification. The 3rd respondent is hastening the matter with the officials to get the amount of compensation. Though the 3rd respondent is not in occupation of the land, he is trying to knock away the entire compensation with the aid of the false entries in the revenue records.. It is his further case that having learnt the fraudulent game played by the 3rd respondent, they have filed an objection petition before the 2nd respondent and objected the 2nd respondent from paying the compensation amount to the 3rd respondent. When the notification was published on 6-12-1997, the 1st petitioner filed objection petition on 22.12.1997. But so far, the 2nd respondent has not referred the mater to the Civil Court as required under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. No counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents denying the averments made in the Writ Petition. In view of the nature of the proceedings as well as the controversy as to the title of the property and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it a fit case wherein the official respondents can be directed to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 27th January, 2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21276 OF 1999 Dated 27th January, 2009