IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.16614 of 2009 Between: K. Hyder Saheb ..... PETITIONER AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector for Handri Nava Srujala, Sravanthi (HNSS), Unit-I, Madanapalli, Chittor District and others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court issued rule nisi on 13-08-2009 and in W.P.M.P.No.21810 OF 2009 this court granted interim direction directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to permit the fourth respondent to encash the cheque issued by the first respondent in lieu of the compensation amount for a period of eight (8) months. 2. The 4th respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.2907 of 2009 to vacate the interim order. At this stage, a request had been made for disposal of the writ petition itself. 3. Sri Saleem, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that since the procedure in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act had not been followed the writ petition to be allowed. 4. Learned AGP for Land Acquisition had taken this court through the respective stands taken by the parties and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances, it should be just and proper if the first respondent – Land Acquisition Officer is directed to look into the objections, if any, raised by the petitioner in this regard and to take an appropriate decision in relation thereto. Sri Mahadeva, learned counsel appearing for the vacate petitioner i.e., the fourth respondent would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition being devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed especially in the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 5. Heard the counsel. 6. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not following the procedure contemplated under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act as illegal, improper, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also to declare that issuance of cheque in favour of fourth respondent for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn at 3rd respondent’s bank towards the compensation for the lands acquired belonging to the petitioner at Boorlapalli village, PTM Mandal, Chittoor District inspite of objections filed by the petitioner and also pending adjudication of Civil Disputes between petitioner and 4th respondent and others on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle in O.S.No.78 of 2008 as illegal, against law and violative of Art.14 ad 21 of the Constitution of India and against the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and pass such other suitable order. 7. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the first respondent acquired an extent of Ac.9.41 ½ cents in Sy.No.372 and extent of Ac.0- 35 cents in Sy.No.349 and an extent of Ac.2.06 cents in Sy.No.348 at Boorlapalli village, PTM Mandal, Chittoor District for the purpose Handri Nava Srujala Sravanthi, a canal (herein after referred to as HNSS canal). The first respondent issued notification vide proceedings No.Roc.D1/390/2008, dated 30-01-2008 under Section 9 (3) and (10) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 calling to file objections on or before 07-02-2008. In response to the notice of the first respondent, petitioner filed his objections with regard to the title of the property and other things. The first respondent directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, PTM Mandal to conduct an enquiry with regard to his objections. It is stated that the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent herein and placed all the demands i.e., Sale Deeds, 10 (1) adangal and pleadings in O.S.No.58 of 2008 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle filed by the 4th respondent and others seeking partition and separate possession. It is stated that the 2nd respondent made him believe that he will place the record before the 1st respondent, before passing award towards the lands acquired belonging to him and 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent further directed him to file any objections before the 1st respondent with regard to the dispute in respect of appointment of compensation. 8. Further it is stated that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act before the 1st respondent through his counsel by stating that the total extent of the disputed Sy.No.72 is an extent of Ac.23.54 cents and the same is joint family properties. Petitioner, 4th respondent and others have been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any division by metes and bounds. Further it is stated that no partition took place and the main survey number was not sub-divided not partition among the co- owners. It is stated that petitioner specifically denied the contents of the 4th respondent by placing the Pattadar pass book, 10(1) Adangal and other documents to prove that the 4th respondent alone is not the owner of the property acquired. It is stated that the 4th respondent and others have filed O.S.No.58 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mandanapalle against him for partition, since the land acquired is exclusively in his possession and enjoyment for the past several years. It is stated that the said suit pending adjudication. It is stated that the proposed HNSS canal is passing through the land in his possession. The petitioner further brought to the notice of 1st respondent that when there is a dispute in respect of appointment of compensation as per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The matter has to be referred to the Civil Court. He also requested the 1st respondent not to issue any cheque in respect of compensation amount in favour of any body including the 4th respondent herein towards the lands acquired and to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court for adjudication. 9. It is also stated that the first respondent after verification of the records and the objections and also after hearing arguments of the counsel made him believe that the matter will be referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and the awarded amount will be deposited in the court. He further assured that no compensation will be given to anybody till the matter is adjudicated before the Civil Court. It is also stated that the petitioner learnt that the first respondent contrary to the procedure issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn at 3rd respondent bank in favour of the 4th respondent herein towards the compensation of the lands acquired for the purpose of HNSS canal by ignoring the dispute among the co- owners of the property and also pendency of civil court. The petitioner subsequently learnt that on the instructions and influence of 2nd respondent herein the 1st respondent issued the cheque. It is stated that the 2nd respondent seems to have influenced by the 4th respondent in order to get the cheque in his favour. It is stated that the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the cheque for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of the 4th respondent without following the procedure under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is also stated that unless this court interfere and direct the 1st respondent to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and also direct the 3rd respondent not to honour the cheque issued in fvour of 4th respondent by the 1st respondent, great injustice and irreparable loss would be caused. It is further stated that till today, the cheque issued in favour of the 4th respondent by the 1st respondent has not been honoured by the 3rd respondent. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent specific stand had been taken that the first respondent issued cheque in accordance with law. Further it is stated that in reply to para 3 of the affidavit in Sy.No.372 of Pedda Thippa Samudram Revenue village which is of an extent of Ac.23.67 cents and there are several co-sharers including the petitioner and 4th respondent and they are enjoying the respective shares without any hindrance since in time immemorial. It is also stated that the father of 4th respondent Ahemmad Kham purchased Ac.2.67 cents with boundaries, from the rightful owner Dandu Gaffor Khan for a valuable consideration and obtained registered sale deed dated 23-04-1987. Further it is stated that the same was delivered possession and they had been enjoying the same. The father of 4th respondent viz., Ahemmad Khan purchased an extent of Ac.4.0 ½ cents under registered sale deed for valuable consideration from his lawful owners by names (1) P. Abdul Khader (2) Mohammad Ali, S/o.P.Kasim Sab with specific boundaries on same day they ware delivered the possession and they have became entitled for an extent of Ac.6.67 ½ cents and they have been enjoying the same with specific boundaries. 11. It is further stated that their possession and enjoyment had been recognized by the Revenue authorities and accordingly issued pattedar pass book and title deeds. It is also stated that his father late Ahammad Khan died in the year 1997 leaving behind this respondent and his brothers as his heirs to succeed all his assets and liabilities. After death of his father this respondent and his brothers succeeded to the properties and thus they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also stated that he purchased an extent of Ac.1-90 cents in Sy.No.372 from the rightful owner by name Shaik Kasim Saheb under registered sale deed on 19-04-2001 for a valuable consideration with specific boundaries and the same was delivered to the petitioner on the same day and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the sand land and pattedar pass book and title deeds also had been issued in his favour. Thus, he is entitled to an extent of Ac.8.57 ½ cents by way of purchase out of Ac.23.54 cents in the said Sy.No.372. It is also stated that all the extents purchased under the above said three (3) different sale deeds are contiguous plots after the purchase this respondent made it into a single plot and gradually developed the land and brought it under cultivation by incurring huge expenditure. After receiving notice under Section 9 (3) and (10) of the Land Acquisition Act this respondent submitted explanation explaining all the facts to the first respondent and thus, the cheque was issued in accordance with law. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act also had been referred to and further it is stated that there is no dispute with regard to these lands since this respondent brought the same through registered sale deeds and hence, there is no question of referring the matter. It is also stated that the entire extent of Ac.8.57 ½ cents purchased by him and his father alone and the respondent No.1 is proposing to form the HNSS channel in Sy.No.372. it is also stated that there are other co-sharers in the said survey number viz., (1) Valli Saheb is enjoying Ac.2.35 ½ Cents (2) Gafoor Saheb enjoying Ac.2.80 cents separately except the purchased through the above registered sale deeds, no other land is touching for the formation of channel in the survey number. But the petitioner for wrongful gain, noted the imaginary extents in the petition even though he is not entitled for the same. It is also stated that the petitioner K. Hyder Sahebs father by name Khader Saheb had one more brother by name Ali Saheb, the said Khader Saheb and Ali Saheb are sons of Hyder Saheb. This respondent further learnt that after the death of the grand father of the petitioner his sons divided the extents in the said and each have got Ac.4.88 cents separately. Since the said Ali Saheb was not married during his life time and he got executed registered gift deed to his brothers daughter jointly who are no other than the sisters of present petitioners for which the civil suit is pending before competent civil court but extents covered under the said suit is not pertaining to subject matter of land in question, which is going to be acquired for the HNSS therefore, the objection filed by the petitioner is not tenable and it is no way connected with claim of this respondent. 12. Further it is stated that the petitioner has mortgaged his extent fallen to the share of his father during the partition is also mortgaged the same to the PACS, Pedda Thippa Samudram under document No.4767, dated 15-09-1984. Thus, the properties owned by the petitioner and 4th respondent are totally different. Therefore, the petitioner purposefully has not given the Boundaries for the extents as alleged in the petition before the 1st respondent and in the writ petition. It is further stated that the petitioner wantonly suppressed all the above facts and registered partition took place in between the father and his brother is sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioner. 13. The specific stand had been taken that after verification of the records only the first respondent having been satisfied that this respondent is entitled to the compensation had issued the cheque and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, since certain objections are raised by the petitioner in the light of the facts and circumstances this court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner and also the 4th respondent in this regard and take appropriate decision within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till then the compensation amount not to be disbursed in favour of any of the parties. 15. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J October 28, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.16614 of 2009 October 28, 2009