IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :3064 of 2006 Between: Smt.Rukmini Devi w/o Santhosh kumar, and d/o late Jaggilal, aged about 65 years, House wife, r/o 2-4-608/4/A, Kachiguda, Kamela Amberpet, Hyderabad .....PETITIONER AND 1 Special District Collector, Land Acquisition (General) Abids, Hyderabad & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTs This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :3064 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the respondent vide file No:C- 1/118/2000 and quash the award passed by the respondent on9.12.2005 in file No:C-1/118/2000 holding the same as illegal and arbitrary and grant all consequential benefits. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. The case of the petitioner that she is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 312.15 square yards in T.S.No:157/2 and 158/2 situated at Amberpet, Hyderabad by virtue of a registered will deed dated 25.10.1963. Originally, the said land was acquired by her elder father late Motilal under a registered sale deed vide document No:268, dated 1343 fasli and her father late Jeggilal was his own brother. Late Motilal s/o Mubodh prasad died on 18.5.1966. During his life time, he executed a Will deed dated 25.10.1963. As per the said Will, the said land was bequeathed to Jeggilal s/o Munbodh prasad (died on 27.3.1995), Premavathi Bai w/o Jeggilal (died on 27.10.2003 and in favour of the petitioner. As per the said Will, Jeggilal and Premavathi Bai are entitled to enjoy the property for life time and the petitioner is having the right to enjoy and alienate the property. After the death of Jeggilal and Premavathi Bai, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the open land. While, the said land was acquired by the Government. On receipt of a notice under section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner filed her claim petition on 3.9.1995 and thereafter, the respondent has passed the order on 9.12.2005 and because of the title dispute, the matter was referred to theCivil Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. But, the name of the petitioner has not been referred. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, a counter affidavit is filed stating that the land in question was acquired and an award was passed on 9.12.2005 in file No:C1/118/2000 and the matter was referred to the Civil Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of the matter due to title dispute by making the Urban Land Ceiling authorities as parties and the compensation at Rs.51,966/- was deterred and deposited in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction under section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further stated in the counter that as per the Revenue and Town survey records, the acquired land is recorded in the names of Motilal and Jeggilal. Motilal expired in the year 1965 and Jeggilal sold the land in T.S.Nos.157/2 and 158/2 along with other survey numbers to one Anjaiah through a registered sale deed vide documents No.3656/197 on 4.11.1971 and the said Anjaiah s/o Lingamaiah in turn entered into an agreement of sale with one K.Jagannadham and Kishorilal in the year 1994. The agreement holders filed a suit in O.S.No:1190 of 2005 on the file of the 7th Senior Civil Judge, CityCivil Court of Hyderabad against Anjaiah and another seeking for specific performance of the agreement entered into in the year 1994 by directing the Special Deputy Collector not to disburse the awarded compensation to Anjaiah. The writ petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings. The name of the petitioner has never been found at any point of time either in revenue or town survey records. If really the Will was existing after the death of Motilal in the year 1965, the petitioner could have taken steps for mutation of the said changes in all the relevant records. The name of the petitioner is also not found in records. Merely on the basis of the Will executed by Motilal, the petitioner cannot claim the benefits as a successor without being brought her name in revenue and town survey records. Hence, the name of the petitioner was not referred to the Civil Court along with others and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she is claiming right over the acquired land basing on a Will and she has received notices under sections 9 (1) 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act as an interested person pursuant to the award passed on 9.12.2005 and she has also made a representation claiming right over the land in question. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the respondents have referred the matter under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the case of the petitioner was not referred to the Civil Court on the ground that she has not proved her title over the land in question. It is well settled that when there is a dispute as to the right and title of the land acquired, the matter has to be referred to a Civil Court under the provisions of section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and in the event of the said reference, it is for the competent Civil Court to adjudicate the matter on the rights of the parties. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner was not referred to the Civil Court on the ground that her name was not included in the revenue records and her claim is not supported by any documentary evidence and her claim is solely on the existence of the Will and she has not objected the sale in respect of a part of the property made in favour of 2nd respondent. From the contentions raised on either side and the observations made in the award, it can easily be said that the petitioner has raised objection as to the title of the property in question. If that being the case, it is not for the Land Acquisition Officer to adjudicate the validation or otherwise of the Will while considering the matter in the award proceedings under the Act. In this background of the matter, I feel it a fit case wherein the claim of the petitioner has to be considered under the provisions of section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, along with others in the matter pending before the Civil Court. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the case of the petitioner to refer the matter under the provisions of section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, so as to consider the same along with others in the matter pending before the Civil Court, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. ____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:22.12.2009 gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :3064 of 2006 22nd December, 2009