THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1239 of 2009 Date: 2.11.2009 Between: The Additional Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, M.C.H. Hyderabad and another . ..... APPELLANT AND Smt P. Narsamma and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1239 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is filed by the Department being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 26930 of 1996, dated 22.06.2009, whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge directed the appellants herein to initiate land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of land in question for the purpose of construction of bridge over the nala and for payment of compensation to the first respondent. Respondent No.1 claims that her husband, P.Narasimha, was the owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land admeasuring 912 sq. yards in Sy.No.82 of Bagh Lingampally, Musheerabad Revenue Mandal, Hyderabad District, and in spite of acquiring the land for the purpose of construction of a bridge, the appellants have not paid compensation. Therefore, her husband filed W.P. No.6701 of 1988, which was disposed of by this Court on 28.10.1998 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to decide his claim. Pursuant thereto, he filed applications on 05.11.1988 and 24.12.1988 before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn issued a memo dated 24.04.1988 stating that the land in question is a Government nala and no compensation can be paid against the said claim. Assailing the same, the said Narasimha filed W.P.No.10054 of 1989 before this Court, which was disposed of on 10.12.1992 with a direction to file civil suit under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 before the competent Civil Court. Subsequent to his death, the 1st respondent herein, who is the wife of the said Narasimha, filed O.S.No. 1105 of 1992 before the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for rectification of survey records and payment of compensation in respect of the land admeasuring 912 sq. yards in Sy.No.82 of Bagh Lingampally, and the same was decreed on 25.04.1996. Seeking to implement the order of the trial Court, Respondent No.1 filed the aforementioned writ petition. While denying the allegations, the 1st appellant has filed a detailed counter before the learned single judge stating that the land in question was not notified under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition at any point of time as no requisition is received by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. They further stated that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has acquired an area of 666.62 sq. yards for widening of the bridge in old revenue S. No. 82 and compensation was also paid for the area on which bridge has been widened. However, in respect of a land acquired in Bagh Lingampally Village, correlating to T.S. No. 1 & 2, Block F, ward 186, it is stated that an amount of Rs. 1,49,739/- was paid to Sri P. Narasimha, the husband of the 1st respondent towards compensation for the acquired land in private negotiations. Thereafter, the said Narasimha appeared to have filed an application on 29.12.1987 before the Deputy Director Survey & Land Records, Hyderabad stating that he was not paid compensation for the entire land acquired. Subsequently, he filed W.P. No. 6701 of 1988 seeking payment of compensation for the remaining area. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in the aforementioned two writ petition, the then Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, has conducted a detailed enquiry into his claim and found that as per the revenue records, the revenue Survey No.82, admeasuring 0.39 guntas is a patta land standing in the name of one Chappal Mallaiah, S/o. Eswaraiah, Pasula Narasimha, S/o. Balaiah,which correlated to T.S. Nos. 1 and 2, Block F, Ward 186 in town Survey recorded in the name of P. Balaiah. With regard to the balance area in dispute claimed by the husband of the 1st respondent, it is stated that same is a Government Nala and no compensation can be paid to him in respect of the same. Feeling aggrieved, he filed yet another Writ Petition, namely, Writ Petition No.10054 of 1989 before this Court, which was disposed of with an observation that the remedy of the petitioner therein is to file a suit in a Civil Court under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act and this Court cannot give any further directions to the Land Acquisition Officer to hold further enquiry into the matter. Subsequent to the death of her husband, the 1st respondent has pursued the said cause and filed a suit in O.S. No. 1105 of 1992 before the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for rectification of survey records and payment of compensation in respect of 912 sq. yards in Survey No.82, Bagh Lingampally, which was decreed on 25.4.1996. The appellants further averred that the Land Acquisition Officer has no power to initiate land acquisition proceedings suo motu and the remedy of the 1st respondent is to approach the Collector (LR), who is the competent authority to order for rectification of T.S. records and thereafter requisition has to be filed by the Requisition Department viz., Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The learned single Judge, having heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the official respondents, by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the authorities to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question, for which, no compensation was paid to the 1st respondent, as per the judgment and decree of the Civil Court rendered in O.S.No.1105 of 1992, dated 25.4.1996 and take steps for payment of compensation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Feeling aggrieved, the department filed the present appeal. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order. There is no dispute about the fact when the husband of the 1st respondent was not paid any compensation amount in respect of the land in question, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of a bridge, he approached this Court by way of Writ petition Nos. 6701 of 1988 and 10054 of 1989. It is also seen from the record that after the demise of her husband, the 1st respondent seemed to have pursued the said cause and in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10054 of 1989, she filed O.S. No. 1105 of 1992 before the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for rectification of survey records and payment of compensation in respect of 912 sq. yards of land situated in Survey No.82, Bagh Lingampally and the said Suit was also decreed by the Civil Court on 25.4.1996. Admittedly, the said decree has not been challenged by the department by filing any appeal and the said decree has ultimately become final. That apart, though in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants before the learned single Judge, there is a mention with regard to the said decree, the appellants did not dispute about the factum of the 1st respondent obtaining such a decree. The learned single Judge while taking into consideration the fact that the decree in O.S. No. 1105 of 1992 has attained finality and in view of the judgment rendered in the said suit, has held that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of construction of a bridge over the nala and as no compensation was paid to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner for the acquired land, has directed the authorities to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question as per the Judgment of the Civil Court in O.S. No.1105 of 1992, dated 25.4.1996 and take all further steps for payment of compensation within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The learned single judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for allowing the writ petition. Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to disturb the well reasoned order of the learned single judge. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 2nd November, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb