IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.17733 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Bin Bubakar ..... PETITIONER AND The Land Acquisition Officer cum The Revenue Divisional Officer, Utnoor, District Adilabad and nine others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court issued rule nisi on 14-08-2008. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.1. By virtue of an order dated 08-09-2009 made in W.P.M.P.No.16871 of 2009 respondents 7 to 10 have been impleaded. Heard Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, learned AGP for Land Acquisition representing respondent No.1, Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao representing respondent No.2, Sri. V. Ravi kiran Rao representing respondents 3 to 6 and Ms.Madhavi Priya Mantena respondents 7 to 10. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No.1 to pay the respective share of the compensation with all consequential benefits to the petitioner herein for the acquired land to the extent of 02 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.213, 06 acres 01 guntas in Sy.No.215, 03 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.253 and 07 acres 19 guntas in Sy.no.254 of Ullipitta, Dorli village, Mandal Tiryani, District Adilabad, in pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the respondent No.1 vide Lr.No.C/1844/2004, dated:Nil-04-2006, and declare the action of respondent No.1 in not paying the said compensation to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 300-A, 31 of the Constitution of India and against the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and pass such other suitable orders. It is averred by the writ petitioner that his late father Sri Bubakar Bin Syed @ Bubakar Abdullah was the owner and pattedar of Agricultural land to the extent of 02 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.213, 06 acres 01 guntas in Sy.No.215, 03 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.253 and 07 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.254 of Ullipitta, Dorli village, Mandal Tiryani, District Adilabad. Further it is stated that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1994 and his father got four sons by name Hasan Bin Bubakar, the petitioner herein viz., Mohd. Bin Bubakar, Salam Bin Bubakar and Ali Bin bubakar and a daughter by name Haleema Begum. All the brothers of the petitioner died long back. Respondent No.3 is the wife of Hasan Bin Bubakar, respondent No.4 is the wife of Salam Bin Bubakar and respondent No.5 is the son of Ali Bin Bubakar. It is also stated that some tenants are cultivating the lands and respondent No.2 herein for the purpose of open cast project acquired total extent of 495.37 acres at Dorli village. In the said acquisition the above said land of the petitioner was acquired and the respondent No.1 herein, acting as a Land Acquisition under L.A. Act issued notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act vide Lr.No.C/1844/2004, dated Nol-04-2006. The said notification was published in Eenadu Telugu newspaper on 01-06-2006. The petitioner further submitted that invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of L.A. Act the respondents 1 and 2 herein took the possession of the said land in the year 2006 itself. It is further stated that the petitioner has made a representation to respondent No.1 to pay his respective share of compensation for the said acquired land. Respondent No.1 instructed him to submit the death certificate of his late father as well as the dependant certificate. The petitioner obtained the said certificates and through a representation dated 18-04-2008 submitted the same to the respondent No.1. Even then through a representation dated 21-03-2007 the petitioner had submitted the Xerox copy of ration card and voters list and requested the respondent No.1 to pay his respective share of compensation, the same cannot be made done. Further it is stated that unfortunately respondent No.1 has not given any fruitful reply to the petitioner and also not paid any compensation to the acquired land. Certain further facts had been narrated and under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act also had been referred to in affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 2. In para 2 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.1 it is stated that the SCCL has filed the requisition for acquisition of land for formation of Open Cast Project Dorli-I at Ullipitta Dorli village of Tiryani Mandal for the purpose of excavation of Coal. The village Ullipitta Dorli is notified Schedule village. The village is consisting of six habitations 90% of the population is scheduled tribes. The village was un-surveyed till 1967. In the year 1967, the Survey was conducted and prepared the Sethwar vide Asst. Director (S&LR) Add.No.L3/171/167 but the Sethwar is having lot of survey errors, the ryots of the village were opposed to implement the Sethwar in Revenue Records. Thereafter in the year 1974, another Suppl. Sethwar was issued vide Asst. Director (S & LR) ADB No.T4/1714/74 duly rectifying the survey errors found in the earlier initial survey. Both the Sethwars were not implemented in the R.R. since the errors were not rectified completely. On requisition filed by the SCCL in interest of poor tribals, the Sethward were implemented in the year 2004-2005. As per the Sub-Division record prepared by the Assistant Director (S&LR), Add., the Patta Land for Acquisition for the purpose of Open Cast Project, Dorli I is 495-37 Acres was proposed. Accordingly, the notification under Section 4(1) was issued. Along with other pattadars, one Sri Bubakar Abdulla (his father’s name and Residence not mentioned in any where in the record) is shown as pattedar against Land Sy.No.231 Ext.2.32, Sy.No.215 Ext.6.01, Sy.No.233 Ext.3.17, Sy.No.254 Ext.7.19 respectively situated at Ullipitta Dorli Village. The Draft Declaration was published in Gazettee No.36/2006-2 on 23-05-2006, Eenadu Telugu Daily News Paper on 01-06-2006, Deccan Chronicle on 02-06-2006, in the locality i.e., Ullipitta Dorli village of Danthanpalli Gram Panchayat, Tiryani Mandal on 12-06-2006 and subsequently the Award enquiry was conducted in this case on 29-09-2006 by issuing the notices in Form 7 U/s.9 (3) and 10 of the L.A. Act 1894 in the name of Bubakar Abdullah, but none of the interested person was attended to the Award enquiry and the notices remain un-served due to pattedar’s whereabouts are not known. Possession of the land has been taken on 27-11- 2006. The petitioner submitted a petition stating that he is legal heir of the deceased pattedar and requested to pay the compensation. The petitioner was asked to produce legal heir certificate issued by the Judicial Court to correctly identifying the right person. But the petitioner has failed to produce the same till this date. Further it is stated that all the survey numbers as claimed by the petitioner are not in possession of the pattedar or legal heirs of the pattedar nor they could identify their survey numbers, land on spot nor having any record showing the title over the land since they never cultivated the land. As per the local enquiry, the following persons are in cultivation since long time. Sy. No. Extent under acquisition Pattedar Name of the Cultivator 213 2.34 Bubakar Abdullah B.Ganapathi, S/o.Shanker (SC) 215 5.00 1.01 Do B. Divakar, S/o.Shanker 253 2.17 Do D. Subba Rao, S/o.Gham 254 2.19 Do D. Shanker, S/o.Gamu 254 5.00 Do D. Subba Rao, S/o.Gamu Under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959, in notified Scheduled villages the Non-Tribal pattadars should have their own cultivation over the land, to claim compensation over the lands held by them but the pattedar has not cultivated the land even though the name of pattedar is shown in Revenue Record. It is further stated that whenever the petitioner made a representation for payment of compensation, he was asked to produce the Legal Heir Certificate duly obtained from the competent court to avoid legal complications, but he failed to produce the Legal Heir Certificate as well as required documents to claim compensation as on today. It is also stated that the petitioner and his family members and tenants of the acquired survey numbers were given ample time to produce supporting documents in claim of compensation of above survey numbers but they failed to produce relevant documents for claim of compensation. In reply to paras 8, 9 and 10 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner and his family members i.e., respondents 3 to 6 have not produce the correct evidence regarding the proof of Legal Heirs of the deceased pattedar. The tenants have also not produced documentary evidence in support of long possession over the land. Due to the reasons stated above, matter could not be referred to competent Civil Court u/s.30 and 31 of L.A. Act as no rival claimants have approached the respondent with relevant required documents so as to enable the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter under Section 30. It is further stated that the petitioner and his family members having dispute among them regarding sharing of compensation, for these reasons they have failed to prove them as legal heirs of the deceased pattedar and all are aware of the acquired land as they never cultivated the land and they are not residents of Ullipitta Dorli village and the tenants have also not produced the documentary evidence of their possession over the land in question for the reasons stated above apportionment of compensation could not be finalized and they are willing to refer the matter to civil court under Section 30 as and when they come forward to claim their compensation along with relevant documents to show title over the property. The compensation to the remaining claimants in the said notification was already paid and award No.C/1844/2004 is passed on18-02-2008 under Section 11 (2) consent award. As the petitioner and the interested claimants to this extent have not come forward to receive compensation but however, had approached this court. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 several further facts had been stated and almost substantially similar stand had been taken. It is stated that the award is not yet passed. However, in the light of the specific stand taken in para 7 of the counter affidavit filed as and when the matter is finalized in accordance with law, if necessary, matter would be referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the light of the same let the writ petitioner and also respondents 3 to 10 file appropriate objections, if any, in this regard within a period of two weeks and let the first respondent consider the same and will take appropriate decision within a period of four weeks thereafter in accordance with law under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J September 8, 2009. PN/BSB THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.17733 of 2008 September 8, 2009