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 MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 36747 of 1998 Between: Kayam Prabhakar Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Land Acquisition Officer/District Social Welfare Officer (L.A), Chittoor and others. .....RESPONDENTS **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.36747 of 1998 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Kayam Prabhakar Reddy questioning the land acquisition proceedings vide award No.37/80-81 dated 25.3.1981 so far as it relates to Ac.0.43 cents in Sy.No.15/3 of Kayam village, Vadamalpet Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in brief, is:- His forefathers viz., K.Venkatarama Reddy, K.Manna Reddy and K.Narayana Reddy were members of undivided joint family. K.Venkatarama Reddy was the head of the family and all the properties of the joint family were in his name. The three brothers divided the joint family properties. The petitioner is the grandson of K.Narayana Reddy. The extents fell to the share of respective families were shown in the land ceiling declarations submitted by them in the year 1976. The division of properties among the three families came to be effected under registered partition deed dated 08.02.1984. The parties to the partition deed are K.Balakrishna Reddy, K.Madhava Reddy, K.Vasudeva Reddy and K.Padmanabha Reddy, who are sons of K.Venkatarama Reddy, K.Narayana Reddy, who is the son of Manna Reddy and K.Ramachandra Reddy, who is the son of Narayana Reddy. As per the partition deed, father of the petitioner got Ac.1.54 cents of land and K.Narayana Reddy got Ac.0.64 cents of land out of Ac.2.18 cents of land in Survey No.15/3. All the village accounts were mutated and land revenue was paid in accordance with the partition deed. With the approval of the District Collector, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, ‘the Act’) and Section 6 declaration were published in District Gazette simultaneously on 09.03.1977 dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry by invoking the urgent clause under Section 17(1) of the Act. The total extent of land sought to be acquired is Ac.1.67 cents comprising Survey Nos.15/3, 23/2, 23/3 and 23/4. The petitioner is concerned only in respect of Ac.0.43 cents in Survey No.15/3. According to the petitioner, he is in possession of the land in Survey No.15/3. The Land Acquisition Officer has not put him on notice with regard to the acquisition of land in his occupation. He did not receive notice in award enquiry under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. The award came to be passed without putting him on notice. He was not paid any compensation as on this day. When the father of the petitioner was issued pattadar passbook in 1995 showing Ac.1.11 cents instead of Ac.1.54 cents in S.No.15/3, a representation was submitted by him to the District Collector on 28.08.1995 seeking rectification of entry in the passbook with regard to the extent of land possessed by him in S.No.15/3. On 04.04.1998, the Mandal Revenue Officer with the assistance of the Sub-Inspector of Police tried to evict the petitioner from the land in question. The father of the petitioner made a representation both to the Revenue Divisional Officer and to the District Collector complaining the highhanded action of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The petitioner filed the writ petition on behalf of his father, who is aged 89 years, questioning the land acquisition proceedings in respect of Ac.0.43 cents in S.No.15/3. For better understanding the case of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras.8 and 9 of the writ affidavit, which read as follows: “In the circumstances stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of petitioner in S.No.15/3 an extent of 0.43 cents in Kayam village, Vadamalpet Mandal, Chittoor District, out of the total extent of Ac.1.60 cents of land and quash the award No.37/80-81 dated 25.03.1981 to the extent of land covered in S.No.15/3, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner is the owner and enjoyer of the land in S.No.15/3 of an extent of 0.43 cents of cultivable land since time of his fore fathers. Even village accounts show his possession and enjoyment. It is submitted that, if the petitioner is evicted, without affording him any opportunity to participate in land acquisition proceedings, he would be put to irreparable injury and hardship. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in S.No.15/3 of an extent of 0.43 cents in Kayam village, Vadamalpet Mandal, Chittoor District and not to assign the said land to any one pending writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 31.12.1998. An interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession until further orders has been passed on the even date vide WPMP No.45281 of 1998. 4. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. P.Venkat Rama Reddy, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that land in Survey No.15/3 admeasuring Ac.2.18 cents of Kayam village was registered in the name of K.Venkatarami Reddy. The original pattadar’s father has two sons viz., Venkatarami Reddy and Narayana Reddy. Venkatarami Reddy has four sons and Narayana Reddy has two sons. All the family members divided the landed property among themselves in the year 1984. Out of Ac.2.18 cents, Ac.0.43 cents was acquired for provision of house site pattas to Scheduled Castes. At the time of award enquiry, the original pattadar died and his son Balakrishna Reddy, Ex-Village Munsif and present Village Administrative Officer, Kayam village, has attended the award enquiry on 25.03.1981. The present petitioner is the grandson of the original pattadar. The present petitioner is well aware about the land acquisition proceedings. Land acquisition process was initiated for providing house sites to the S.Cs. of Kayam village in S.Nos.15/3, 23/2, 23/3 and 23/4 admeasuring Ac.1.60 cents. The eldest son of original pattadar was the Village Administrative Officer of Kayam village. He received notice and appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer for award enquiry, but he had not received the compensation awarded for land in Survey No.15/3 (Ac.0.43 cents). Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration were published in the Gazette and two local newspapers and also in the village at prominent places. At the time of partition, which is stated to have been effected among the members of the family on 08.02.1984, the petitioner’s father knew very well about the acquisition of land in S.No.15/3A. The land acquired in S.No.15/3A has been transferred as village site poramboku. The land in S.No.15/3A admeasuring Ac.0.43 cents of Kayam village was acquired by the Government vide award No.37/80-81 dated 25.03.1981 for providing house sites to the Harijans. Consequent to the acquisition of land, the same has been classified as village site. 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the Land Acquisition Officer did not issue notice to the interested persons. The alleged attendance of Balakrishna Reddy during the enquiry may be in his official capacity. He is not the manager of the family and he cannot represent the other shareholders. In the partition that effected in 1984, the land in question fell to the share of the petitioner. The acquisition of the land was not brought to the notice of the petitioner by K.Balakrishna Reddy. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner asserted that no notice was served on the landowner during the award enquiry. Thereupon, this Court directed the respondents to place on record the entire file relatable to award No.37/80-81 dated 25.03.1981. On 25.08.2009, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition sought time to place on record the file relatable to award No.37/80-81 dated 25.03.1981. On 16.09.2009 Sri P.Venkatarama Reddy, who has sworn to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, appeared before the Court and represented that he has sworn to the counter-affidavit on 19.07.2000 after verifying the concerned file. 7. Heard Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an extent of Ac.1.54 cents fell to the share of the father of the petitioner in the partition effected under a registered sale deed dated 08.02.1984 and in the said partition, an extent of Ac.1.54 cents fell to the share of the petitioner. A further submission has been made that the award came to be passed in respect of Ac.0.43 cents in S.No.15/3A which is in occupation of the father of the petitioner without putting him on notice and therefore, the award No.37/80-81 dated 25.03.1981 in respect of the land in occupation of the petitioner is to be declared as illegal. A further submission has been made that necessary direction is required to be issued to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of Ac.0.43 cents in S.No.15/3 without following the due process of law. He would also contend that no notice was given to the father of the petitioner nor to any one concerned to the land admeasuring Ac.0.43 cents in S.No.15/3 of Kayam village. 9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents submits that K.Balakrishna Reddy, who is the eldest son of K.Venkatarama Reddy, was the Village Administrative Officer at the relevant period and he was very much present during the award enquiry and had notice of the proceedings and in which case, the land acquisition proceedings in respect of Ac.0.43 cents in S.No.15/3 cannot be held as illegal. 10. Indisputably, an award No.37/80-81 dated 25.03.1981 came to be passed in respect of Ac.1.60 cents of dry land comprising the Survey Nos.15/3A, 23/2, 23/3 and 23/4 of Kayam village. The first paragraph of the award reads as hereunder: “The Harijans of Kayam village in Puttur Taluk in Chittoor District have applied for providing house sites to them as the existing Harijanawada is congested. The Block Development Officer, Puttur, conducted enquiries into the matter and sent up proposals for acquiring an extent of 1-60 acres of Dry covered by the following S.Nos. Sl. No. Survey No. Total Extent (Acres) Extent Proposed (Acres) Name of the pattadar or enjoyer 1. 15/3A 2-10 0-43 K.Balakrishna Reddy 2. 23/2 0-62 0-60 K.Ranga Reddy 3. 23/3 0-36 0-36 M . P a d m a v a t h a m m a , & K.Kamalamma 4. 23/4 0-39 0-29 K.Narasamma It is also stated in the award that K.Balakrishna Reddy is the owner of the land in Survey No.15/3A admeasuring Ac.0.43 cents and the compensation is required to be paid in 5 annual installments as he is having more than 5-00 acres with interest at 6% per annum. As on 1981, even as per the writ affidavit averments, K.Venkatarami Reddy, who is the father of K.Balakrishna Reddy, was in occupation of Ac.1.10 cents, whereas K.Narayana Reddy and K.Manna Reddy, who are brothers of K.Venkatarama Reddy, were in occupation of Ac.0.65 cents and 0.43 cents respectively. For the sake of clarity on this aspect, I may refer Para.3 of the writ affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “It is submitted that, the petitioner’s forefathers i.e., K.Venaktarama Reddy, K.Manna Reddy and K.Narayana Reddy were members of undivided joint family. Sri K.Venkatarami Reddy used to be the head of the family and whole properties of the family were in his name. In spite of K.Venkatarami Reddy shown as pattadar, in so far as S.No.15/3 is concern, it is in possession and enjoyment of all three family members i.e, K.Venatarama Reddy family Ac.1.10 cents, K.Narayana Reddy family 0.65 cents and K.Manna Reddy family 0.43 cents. The present petitioner belongs to K.Narayana Reddy family, who is the grand father of the petitioner. Even in land ceiling declarations, the same extents as mentioned above were shown in 1976. Subsequently the joint family properties were divided between these three families through a registered partition deed dated 08.02.1984. The said partition deed is signed by the six members of the three branches i.e., 1) K.Balakrishna Reddy, 2) Madhava Reddy, 3) Vasudeva Reddy and 4) Padmanabha Reddy, who are the sons of Venkatarama Reddy, K.Narayana Reddy, who is the son of Manna Reddy and 6) Ramachandra Reddy, who is the son of Narayana Reddy. As per that partition deed, the father of the petitioner got Ac.1.54 cents of land and K.Narayana Reddy, got 0.64 cents of land out of Ac.2-18 cents in S.No.15/3. After the partition, all the village accounts were mutated and the land revenue is also paid in accordance with the partition deed.” It is evident from the record that as on the date of acquisition proceedings, the division of properties among the three brothers viz., K.Venktarama Reddy, K.Manna Reddy and K.Narayana Reddy was not evidenced by any document. It was only in the year 1984, the registered document came to be executed with regard to the division of properties among the three families. In the division, K.Venkatarama Reddy’s family, whose eldest son is K.Balakrishna Reddy, was not given any land in S.No.15/3 though his family was in occupation of A.1.10 cents. Indisputably, K.Balakrishna Reddy was the Village Administrative Officer and he was very much aware of the land acquisition proceedings in his official capacity. 11. For the reasons best known to the family members, the land in S.No.15/3 was allotted to the two branches of K.Manna Reddy and K.Narayana Reddy while excluding the branch of K.Venkatarama Reddy. In the writ petition, it cannot be adjudicated as to what was the reason for not allotting any piece of land in Survey No.15/3 to the branch of K.Venkatarama Reddy, whose eldest son is K.Balakrishna Reddy and who worked as Village Administrative Officer at the relevant point of time. However, it appears the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector, Chittoor on 28.08.1995 and no orders seem to have been passed on the said representation. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to direct the District Collector, Chittoor-2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 28.08.1995 and pass appropriate orders thereon. If the representation submitted by the petitioner is not available or if there is any difficulty for the 2nd respondent to trace the same, the petitioner is also at liberty to make a fresh representation to the District Collector, Chittoor-2nd respondent, in which event the District Collector, Chittoor-2nd respondent has to consider the representation along with the representation already filed, if available, and pass appropriate orders thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:05th October, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}