THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3555 of 2003 December 13, 2010 Between: C.Satyanarayana, S/o.Venkata Muni ...Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor and another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3555 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner’s mother was statedly the owner of land admeasuring Acs.0.86 in S.No.126/6 and Acs.0.46 in S.No.127/8 situated at Panagal Village of Srikalahasti Mandal in Chittoor District. Respondents initiated proposals and issued notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) for acquiring the land admeasuring an extent of Acs.25.24 in Srikalahasti and Panagal Villages for formation of bypass road across Swarnamukhi River of Srikalahasti and Panagal villages. It is the case of the petitioner that an extent of Acs.0.11 in S.No.127/8A of Panagal Village was also notified for the purpose. Award No.1/94, dated 12.5.1994 was passed. Petitioner alleges that as per the award, his mother was entitled to receive compensation for an extent of Acs.0.11, but the amount was wrongly paid to one P.Muni Raghava Reddy whose other lands were also acquired. Petitioner contends that Muni Raghava Reddy misled and played fraud on the authorities in receiving the compensation for the land admeasuring Acs.0.11, though he is not entitled to. Eight years after the award was passed, petitioner along with his brother, C.Mohan Rao, filed W.P.No.13628 of 2002 seeking a direction to respondents to pay compensation. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 21.10.2002 observing that it is always open to the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) – the second respondent – to decide the issue as to who are entitled to receive compensation as per the award No.1/94. Petitioner alleges that after the writ petition was disposed of, the LAO conducted enquiry and issued proceedings dated 05.3.2002 for recovery of the amount from Muni Raghava Reddy. In the mean while, petitioner’s brother, Mohan Rao, executed a gift deed in favour of petitioner and, therefore, he filed instant writ petition contending that though the second respondent conducted enquiry no compensation was paid to the petitioner. Second respondent filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is sated that award enquiry was conducted after publishing the notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. During the award enquiry the concerned Village Administrative Officer appeared and submitted copies of 10(1) Account. As per these, the patta in respect of land in S.No.127/8 (patta No.109) stood in the name of M/s.Muni Raghava Reddy and four others. This includes the land in S.No.127/8A. Except Muni Raghava Reddy, nobody claimed compensation in respect of the said land and, therefore, the award was passed in his favour for various pieces of land including land in S.No.127/8A duly verifying the village revenue records. An amount of Rs.28,420/- was paid to him. It is further stated that after disposal of the writ petition, enquiry was conducted on 07.2.2003, 03.3.2003 and 10.3.2003 and an endorsement bearing Roc No.A/41/2003 dated 12.3.2003 was issued advising the parties to seek redressal in Civil Court. Though the counter affidavit was served on petitioner’s counsel on 18.7.2009, no reply affidavit is filed in rebuttal. The Counsel for the petitioner relies on the Award No.1/94 dated 12.5.1994 and the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional officer in D.Dis.E/2426/2001, dated 05.3.2002, which is an order in appeal presumably filed by one P.Krishna Reddy under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. The Counsel also relies on the copies of adangals and pattadar passbooks issued in his favour. Per contra, the Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) submits that in obedience to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.13628 of 2002, enquiry was conducted, and having found that petitioner’s mother did not participate in the award enquiry, even though notices are issued to her under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, an endorsement was issued on 12.3.2003 advising the parties to approach the Civil Court. According to him, there is a dispute regarding entitlement of compensation and, therefore, the writ petition is not a proper remedy. He nextly contends that the award contains particulars of the lands which wee included in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and also the persons to whom the compensation is payable. As per the eligibility list, the compensation amount is payable only to Muni Raghava Reddy and, therefore, the award cannot be faulted. The issue is in very narrow compass. There is no dispute that petitioner’s mother received notice of award enquiry. There is also no dispute that she did not appear in the award enquiry. In the award, the particulars of various extents of lands in Panagal and Srikalahasti villages are mentioned. This is followed by the list of persons to whom the compensation is payable. Though petitioner’s mother is shown as registered holder/occupier in respect of land in S.No.127/8A, her name is conspicuous by its absence in the list of persons to whom compensation is payable. This would strengthen the respondents’ contention that it is Muni Raghava Reddy who claimed entire compensation and that the petitioner’s mother did not participate in the award enquiry. Therefore it is not of much help to the petitioner. Insofar as the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati (RDO), dated 05.3.2002 are concerned, they came into existence long after the award was passed and cannot be attached much importance especially Muni Raghava Reddy is not a party to these proceedings. The petitioner filed the writ petition being W.P.No.13628 of 2002 which was disposed of on 21.10.2002 observing as follows. The petitioners seek a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not paying compensation as per the Award No.1/94 dated 12.5.1994. Meanwhile the M.R.O. Srikalahasti issued a notice dated 24.5.2002 calling upon the respondent No.5 to repay the compensation of Rs.28,420/- with interest thereon which was paid to him pursuant to Award No.1/94, dated 12.5.1994 basing upon the revenue records namely 10(1) Accounts and Adangals for the Faslis 1402 to 1407. In view of the claim made by the petitioners that the lands stand in the name of Chittem Munemma, W/o.Late Venkatamuni Naidu, the respondents 3 to 10, who are now impleaded, are not entitled to receive the compensation. As the Land Acquisition Officer has already initiated proceedings, it is always open for the parties to show the cause and it is always open for the L.A.O. to decide the issue as to who are entitled to receive the compensation awarded in Award No.1/94, dated 12.5.1994 with regard to documents and evidence adduced by either parties. In view of the same, no further orders are necessary in the writ petition. All the contentions are left open to raise before the L.A.O. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. This Court has already held that it is for the LAO to decide the issue as to who are entitled to receive compensation. In pursuance thereof, admittedly second respondent conducted enquiry and issued endorsement dated 12.5.2003 observing that the petitioner has to seek redressal before the competent Civil Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the LAO is correct in saying so. Further, when the award was passed on 12.5.1994, petitioner chose to start litigation after eight years. This would itself bar him from claiming any relief from this Court on the ground of delay and laches. If so advised the petitioner may avail the remedy in Civil Court in which event the issue shall be decided without in any manner being influenced by the observations and findings recorded herein above. The writ petition, with the above observations, stands dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) December 13, 2010 YS