HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.12055 of 2009 Date: November 05, 2009 Between: V. Srilatha. …Petitioner And 1. The Collector, Mahabub Nagar District, Mahabub Nagar and 8 others. …Respondents * * * ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 22.6.2009 and the implead petition W.P.M.P.No.17125 of 2009 was ordered on 17.7.2009. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 04.8.2009. After hearing the counsel on record, on 22.9.2009, this Court directed for production of the records. On 26.20.2009 the matter was heard and the orders had been reserved. This Court had examined the records produced before this Court. 2. The writ petition is filed praying for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings bearing No.C/1021/2009, dated 14.5.2009, of the 3rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders. 3. Heard Sri K. Madhusudan Rao, learned counsel representing writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel representing R-4 to R-9, who were impleaded as parties in W.P.M.P.No.17125 of 2009. 4. Sri K. Madhusudan Rao, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the averments made in the counter-affidavit and also the averments made in the reply-affidavit and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the remedy available to R-4 to R-9, may be, to approach a competent civil court and such disputed questions cannot be decided by respondents 1, 2 and 3 and, hence, the proceedings challenged in this writ petition to be held as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel also relied on certain decisions. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had taken this Court through the contents of counter-affidavit and would maintain that this is a case of clear fraud and even otherwise in the light of the undertaking given by the petitioner, the petitioner is estopped from contending otherwise and, hence, the writ petition to be dismissed. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also relied on certain decisions. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would maintain that the proceedings under challenge had been issued by the third respondent as directed by the first respondent and in the light of the facts and circumstances, especially, in the light of the stand taken by the respondents 1, 2 and 3 it cannot be said that the proceeding under challenge is without jurisdiction. 7. Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel representing R-4 to R-9 had explained the facts and circumstances in detail and would maintain how the writ petitioner, by playing fraud, had received excess compensation and the conduct of the writ petitioner also had been pointed out. 8. Heard the counsel on record, perused the respective stands taken by the parties in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, counter- affidavit and also the reply-affidavit and further perused the records produced before this Court. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the pattadar for the land bearing survey No.280/2 to the extent of Ac.2-13 guntas situate at Manigalla village, Peddamandadi Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and the petitioner inherited the land by way of succession from his father late V. Hanumantha Rao. 10. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner’s father had three more brothers viz., (1) Balakishan Rao (2) Lakshmikantha Rao and (3) Muralidhar Rao and this family is having joint family properties in the villages of Manigilla and Jagatpally of Peddamandadi Mandal of Mahabubnagar District. The family tree of the petitioner is as hereunder: The father of the petitioner died about 22 years back and after the death of petitioner’s father the entire share of the property held in the name of late Hanmantha Rao was mutated in the name of late Laxminarasimha Rao (petitioner’s brother). After the death of the petitioner’s brother, the lands were mutated in the name of the petitioner, her sister and in the name of petitioner’s mother. In fact, the property was not partitioned by metes and bounds as on today. 11. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner’s parents belong to an orthodox family and the petitioner had married a person of a different caste in the year 1985 and, hence, the family members bore grudge against the petitioner and these family members have been harassing the petitioner in so many ways. The writ petitioner specifically referred to the name of Muralidhar Rao and the said Muralidhar Rao is R-4 in the present writ petition. 12. Further it is stated that while the matters stood thus, the Government intended to construct a reservoir at Kanayapalli village (also called as Shankara Samudram) and acquired the lands in petitioner’s village i.e., Manigilla and other surrounding villages. The petitioner and other paternal family lands were also acquired for the said purpose. According to family under standing for the purpose of land acquisition only, an award bearing No.30/2007, dated 05.10.2007 was passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) after calling for objections. All the family members of the petitioner deposed in favour of the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer and consented for the petitioner to receive compensation for the land bearing Sy.No.290/2 to an extent of Ac.2-13 guntas for an amount of Rs.2,44,125/- by the petitioner only. The said award became final and no appeal or suit had been filed either before this Court or before any other court questioning the award. 13. It is also averred that now, the third respondent, on the direction of the first respondent, intended to recover the compensation at the instance of family members, particularly one Muralidhar Rao, the paternal uncle of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was threatened by the first respondent’s office to sign on a paper which was already written by the staff of the first respondent office and addressed to the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District on 30.1.2009 and made the petitioner to sign the same under coercion, making the petitioner to accept the allegation that she had received the compensation of Rs.2,44,125/- in excess than that of her share eligibility and the same shall be refunded to the second respondent within 60 days i.e., on or before 30.3.2009 and the same shall be distributed to the family members according to eligibility by the second respondent. 14. Further specific stand had been taken that the petitioner under coercion and on force of the first respondent, who had no jurisdiction or authority to entertain such representations, had signed the representation drafted by one Maharudrappa, a staff member of respondent office. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued the impugned order of recovery of the same from the petitioner under Revenue Recovery Act and the said action is without jurisdiction and the same is being challenged on certain grounds specified in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 15. The second respondent, Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) filed counter-affidavit denying several of the averments. It is averred that the Executive Engineer, Bhima Project Execution Division No.2, Pebbair had submitted a requisition vide his Proceedings R.B.L.I.E.D.No.2 Lr.No.EE/RLI/ ED2/PBR/DB/HD/P-18/343, dated 23.01.2006, for acquisition of the lands to an extent of Ac.540-20 guntas situate within the limits of Manigilla village of Peddamandadi Mandal for construction of Shankara Samudram Balancing Reservoir and after receipt of requisition, survey and sub-division of the lands for acquisition was made. Thereupon Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) were submitted to the Special Collector, L.A. Bheema Project, Mahabubnagar on 29.4.2006 and the same had been approved by the Special Collector on 04.5.2006 and 01.6.2006 respectively. After approval, the said Draft Notification and Draft Declaration were published in the following manner. Draft Notification PUBLICATION Draft Declaration Gazette No.58/06, dt.4.5.06 Gazette No.71/06, dt.1.6.06 Paper-I Vaartha Daily Newspaper Dt.24.5.06 Paper-II Praja Shakti Dt.18.5.06 Paper-I, Eenadu Daily newspaper dt.2.6.06 Paper-II, Andhra Jyothi Daily News paper, Dated 10.6.06 Location: Gram Panchayat, Manigilla village, dt.10.6.06 Gram Panchayat, Manigilla village, dt.22.7.06 Further it is averred that notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act had been issued on 09.11.2006 and published on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat Office on 23.11.2006 and also issued notices on 09.11.2006 to all the land owners and interested persons as per the revenue records asking them to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer for claiming their rights. 16. The petitioner and others attended the award inquiry and during award inquiry they gave a statement mentioning their respective shares in the respective survey numbers. According to the statement recorded on 17.4.2007 the petitioner agreed to take compensation for an extent of Acs.3-00 only. The statement pertains to survey Nos.117, 118, 120, 130, 131, 132, 133 and 134 only. Survey No.290/2 was not part of the agreement/statement recorded on 17.4.2007. Further specific stand had been taken that the petitioner surreptitiously inserted in the statement and obtained award for Acs.2-13 guntas in Sy.No.290/2 for which the writ petitioner is not entitled at all. 17. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that thereafter V. Muralidhar Rao, son of Narasimha Rao and 5 others had filed a petition before the A.P. Human Rights Commissioner, Hyderabad, complaining against the petitioner. The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar enquired into the matter. Before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, the petitioner agreed to return the amount received by her. The actual holding of the owners and the particulars thereof are as hereunder: Sy.No. Extent Ac. Gts. Name of the owner as per RoR 290/A2 0-24 V. Sugunamma, w/o Hanmanth Rao 290/A3 0-23 V. Balakishan Rao, s/o Narsimha Rao 290/A4 0-23 V. Laxmikanth Rao, s/o Narsimha Rao 290/A5 0-23 V. Murlidhar Rao, s/o Narsimha Rao 18. Further it is stated that the matter was enquired into on 30.01.2009 before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, and the parties appeared before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and stated the said facts. Further it is stated in para 8 of the counter-affidavit that both parties are the legal heirs of common ancestor and are shareholders in ancestral property. From the perusal of award it is found that the L.A.O. awarded an amount of Rs.2,44,125/- in favour of Srilatha, d/o Hanmantha Rao towards compensation for the land bearing Sy.No.290/2 to an extent of Ac.2-13 guntas, though Srilatha is not the sole owner of the land. As on the date of Draft Notification, the share of Srilatha was 0-06 guntas only and she further sold the said area to Smt. Surekha through registered document No.2715/07, dated 07.7.2007. In addition to Smt. Srilatha, the respondents were also shareholders in Sy.No.290/2. Therefore, the then L.A.O. ought to have conducted a detailed inquiry and recorded the statements of all the concerned shareholders to decide the right of each individual shareholder before passing the award in respect of Sy.No.290/2. Except, one statement, no other documents were there in support of the decision taken by the L.A.O. 19. It is also the case of the second respondent that all the interested persons including Smt. Srilatha appeared before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar on 30.01.2009 and all the interested persons entered into a compromise and according to the said compromise Smt. Srilatha agreed to return the amount paid to her in respect of Sy.No.290/2 to S.D.C. Pebbair within two months. The entire dispute regarding apportionment of award amount had taken place due to erroneous payment of entire compensation to Smt. Srilatha. Before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, the writ petitioner gave a statement to refund the amount within two months failing which action can be taken to recover the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act by the District Administration. 20. Further it is averred in para 11 of the counter-affidavit that the District Collector, Mahabubnagar vide Lr.No.G1/7161/2008, dated 06.4.2009 had stated that the then Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Pebbair, had erroneously awarded the entire land compensation of Sy.No.290/2, Ac.2-13 guntas of Manigilla village in favour of Srilatha, though she was actually entitled to only 1/6th share of compensation. Since the said Srilatha had willfully violated the undertaking made before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, the Tahsildar, Peddamandadi was requested to recover the amount of Rs.2,44,125/- from her. 21. It is also stated that in compliance with the instructions of the Collector, Mahabubnagar/Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisitioin) RLISP-II, Pebbair, the Tahsildar, Peddamandadi, had issued notice under Section R.R. Act to the writ petitioner for recovery of Rs.2,44,125/-. Hence, in the said circumstances the writ petition being devoid of merit, the dismissal of writ petition had been prayed for. This is the stand taken by the second respondent in the counter-affidavit. 22. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 9 several details relating to family had been narrated and specific stand had been taken that the writ petitioner is having cheating mentality and the writ petitioner thought of swallowing the amounts which are to be paid lawfully to the other family members. In the counter-affidavit filed by R-4 to R-9 almost similar stand had been taken as in the counter-affidavit of R-2. 23. In the reply-affidavit filed, several of the averments made in the counter-affidavits had been denied. Specific stand had been taken that the petitioner never agreed before the Human Rights Commissioner to refund the compensation received. The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, without conducting any inquiry and without jurisdiction, by force and coercion had taken the signatures of the petitioner on a pre-drafted letter. A consent award was passed in favour of the petitioner after taking consent of the unofficial respondents and the allegation that the then Deputy Tahsildar, Jagannadh Goud created forged documents had been denied. Further in paras 8, 9 and 10 the writ petitioner justified the receiving of the compensation in relation to Sy.No.290/2 as well. Further stand had been taken that the Joint Collector is not having jurisdiction to record any compromise and any such compromise can be recorded only by a civil court under Section 30 of the Act. 24. The learned counsel representing the writ petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision in Govindu Venkata Reddy v. K. Krishna Rao and another[1] wherein the Division Bench at paras 11, 12, 13 and 19 observed as hereunder: “Thus, the Land Acquisition Act indicates a clear-cut scheme on the question at issue, viz. , where conflicting claims to the land acquired, or to the compensation payable, are preferred before the collector (Land Acquisition officer). He may choose either to decide the matter himself, or to refer the same to civil court. If he chooses to follow the first alternative, he will determine the area of the land, the amount of compensation, and also the persons who, according to him, are entitled to compensation, and pass an award incorporating his decision on all these three questions. In such a case, the only remedy of the person aggrieved by the award is to ask for a reference under section 18, within the period of limitation prescribed therein. if such an application is made, the collector is bound to make a reference, notwithstanding his decision on the applicants claims, and he is also bound to deposit the amount in the court. But where the chooses to adopt the second alternative, he will determine the area of the land, the quantum of compensation, and them make an suo motu reference under section 30 of the Act to civil court, to decide the conflicting claims of the claimants before him. In such a case also, he has to send the amount of compensation determined by him, to the court. Besides the above, a person who was not present or represented before the collector during the award enquiry had a right raise a dispute as to apportionment or with respect to the right to receive the compensation, before the collector, after the passing of the award. But, in such a case the collector may, or may not make reference, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and if collector refuses to make such a reference, the only remedy of the persons concerned would be to institute a suit to establish his claims and contentions. In Afzal Bee v. Special Deputy Collector. Land Acquisition Srisailam (2978) 1 ALT 449: (AIR 1978 Andh Pra 463), Chinnapa Reddy, J. , held that the Land Acquisition Officer does have the jurisdiction to decide questions of title if such questions are raised before him. This is what the learned judge said (at p. 463 of AIR):- ". . . . If sections 11, 29, 30 and 18 are read together, it becomes obvious that the land acquisition officer has the jurisdiction to apportion the compensation among the persons interested while making an award. That necessarily means that he has the jurisdiction to decide questions of title if such questions are raised before him. But instead of deciding the question of title himself he has the option to refer such question to the court under Section 30 of the Act Naturally, where complicated questions of title arise, the land acquisition officer will be expected to refer the questions for the decision of the court under section 30. But where the questions raised are simple, the land acquisition officer may himself deal with them and incorporate his decision in the award. If he does so and if a party is aggrieved by the apportionment of compensation, such party may seek a reference under section 18 of the Act. In the present case the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the revenue records came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to any share in certain survey numbers. He issued notice but the petitioner did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of her claim in regard to he share in those survey numbers. The entire amount of compensation in regard those survey numbers was awarded to respondents 2,3, and 4. It awarded to respondents 2,3 and 4. it does not appear that the land acquisition officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in making such award. . . . . " The opinion of Chinnappa Reddy, J. , accords with the view expressed by us hereinbefore. In Dr. G. H. Grant v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237 Shah J. , speaking for the majority, held that a party who was present or represented before the land acquisition officer during the award proceedings, cannot apply for making a reference under section 30. The only remedy available to such person is to apply under section 18. The learned judge observed further that, under section 30 a person who was not present or represented before the Land Acquisition Officer during the award proceedings, can apply for making a reference to civil court for determination of his right to compensation, which may have existed before the award, or which may have developed upon him since the award. In that case, the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act was made on 8/06/1949, and the collector made the award on Mar. 25, 1952. On 22/05/1952 the land in question, being,. part of an estate, vested in the State of Bihar, by virtue of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. On 15/10/1952 the state filed a petition before the collector claiming that, the compensation money award to the landowner has, under the notification issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, become payable to the State Government and that, therefore, the dispute between and state and the landowner may be referred to the court for decision under section 30 of the land Acquisition Act. A reference was, accordingly, made. (Two other references were also made under section 18 read with section 30, with which are not concerned ). The District judge, rejected the States claim and upheld the right of the landowner and other parties interested therein. Against the order of the District judge, the state preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court took the view that the title in the land passes only when its possession is taken, and since the title in the land came to vest in the state before the possession was taken, the state was entitled to the compensation and that, the collector was justified in making a reference under sec. 30 of the Act, at the instance of the state. When the matter came up before the supreme court, the contentions raised were (1) that the collector had no authority to refer the matter under section 30, after he had apportioned the amount of compensation under section 11; and (ii) that, the State Government was not a person interested: within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, and could not have applied for a reference under section 30. It is in these circumstances that the supreme court held that section 30 entitled a person who was not present or represented before the collector but who had pre-existing right or has acquired a right since the passing of the award, to the compensation, to apply for making a reference and that, a reference can be made by the collector on such an application. The Supreme Court emphasised the fact that, for applying under section 30, no period of limitation is prescribed, and also that the collector is not bound to make a reference on such an application but that, he as discretion in the matter. We are unable to read this decision as laying down that, under section 30, the collector cannot make suo motu reference to the court Indeed, while discussing the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, the curt observed as follows:- ". . . . . . Part IV deals with apportionment of compensation. If the persons interested agree in the apportionment of the compensation, the particulars of such apportionment shall be specified in the award (s. 29): if there be no such agreement, the collector may, if a dispute arises as to the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable , refer such dispute under Section 30 for decision by the Court. . . . . . " This observation makes it abundantly clear that the Collector is entitled to make a suo motu reference to the Court under Section 30, where he is not inclined to go into disputed questions of title, or conflicting claims to compensation. There supreme Court pointed out the fields of operation of Sections 13 and 30 in the following words: "there are two provisions, Sections 18 (1) and 30, which invest the Collector with power to refer to the Court a dispute as to apportionment of compensation as to the persons to whom it is payable. By sub-section (1) of Section 18 the Collector is enjoined to refer a dispute as to apportionment, or as to title to receive compensation, on the application within the time prescribed by sub-section (2) of that section of person interested who has not accepted the award. Section 30 authorises the Collector to refer to the Court after compensation is settled under Section 11, any dispute arising as to apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. A person shown in that part of the award which relates to apportionment of the compensation, who is present either personally or through a representative, or on whom notice is served under sub-sec. (2) of Section 12, must, if he does not accept the award, apply to the Collector within the time prescribed under Section 18 (2) to refer the matter to the Court. But a person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceeding before the Collector, pay, if he is not