IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3279 of 2008 Between: Smt. Regulapati Satyamma, W/o. late R.Balakishan Rao, R/o.Chinthala Thana, Sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep by The Special Colletor, Land Acquisition ORR and Sri Ram Sagar Project, Sri Pada Sagar project and Juvvadi Chokka Rao, Lift Irrigation Project, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Oficer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. 3 Regulapati Venkat Rao, S/o. Late R. BalaKishan Rao R/o. Satya General Stores, Karimnagar Dist. 4 Regulapati Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. Late R. BalaKishan Rao R/o. Satya General Stores, Karimnagar Dist. 5 Smt. Muppala Vasantha, W/o.Srihari Rao R/o. 2-10-1068, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 in not considering the claim lstatement lfiled by the petitioner on 17-4-2007 and 21-1-2008 and Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.80 of 2004 as illegal and arbirrary and further direct the respondent no.2 to consider the claim statement filed by the petitioner on 17-4-2007 and 21-1-2008 and pay the compensation as per the Memorandum of compromise and decree in O.S.No.80 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Karimnagar, relating to lands bearing Sy.Nos.189, 409,410 and 307 admeasuring Ac.7.11, 1.39, 1-28 and 1-24 situated at Chinthal Thana Village, Sircilla Mandal, in File No.A1/365/07 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstantces of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.TULASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3279 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Initially the writ petition was filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the claim statement filed by the petitioner on 17.4.2007 and 21.1.2008 and judgment and decree in O.S.No.80 of 2004 as arbitrary and illegal and further direct the respondent No.2 to consider the claim statement and pay the compensation as per the Memorandum of Compromise in O.S.No.80 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar relating to land bearing Sy.Nos.189, 409, 410 and 307 admeasuring Ac.7-11 guntas, Ac.1-39 guntas, Ac.1-28 guntas and Ac.1-24 guntas respectively situated at Chintal Thana village, Sircilla mandal, Karimnagar district in File No.A1/365/07. However, in view of the altered circumstances, W.P.M.P.No.4993 of 2009 was filed seeking amendment to the prayer in the writ petition by adding the following after the words File No.A1/365/07: “by setting aside the Award Nos.12 & 14/2008-2009 dated 4.10.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 to the extent of land bearing Sy.Nos.189 admeasuring Ac.7-11 guntas, Sy.No.409, Ac.1-39 guntas, Sy.No.410, Ac.1-28 guntas and Sy.No.307 Ac.1-24 guntas situated at Chintal Thana village, Sircilla mandal, Karimnagar district”. Further, respondent Nos.6 to 8 were impleaded as per Court Order dated 26.2.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.26126 of 2008. Before going into facts, it is very painful to notice that an 82 years old lady, mother of respondents 3 to 5 and grandmother of respondents 6 to 8 is being made to run around the courts for seeking a just living – the arrangements made by her late husband creating life interest in the property and the life interest is not being allowed to be enjoyed by her. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 are the sons and respondent No.5 is the daughter of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner late R.Balakishan Rao was having agricultural lands and houses at Chintal Thana village, Sircilla mandal, Karimnagar district and also houses and other properties in Karimnagar town. Petitioner’s husband was not keeping good health during the year 2000-02 and he was hospitalized. Respondents 3 and 4 have not taken care to look after their father and ultimately petitioner’s husband expired on 17.7.2002. Even after the death of her husband, respondents 3 and 4 have not taken any care to maintain petitioner. Some differences arose regarding the properties of her late husband. Respondent No.5 filed suit in O.S.No.80 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar for partition and separate possession of her late father. After filing the suit, respondents 3 and 4 have approached elders for settlement of the disputes. On the advice of elders and well-wishers, the matter was compromised and a memorandum of compromise was filed into the Court. The learned Senior Civil Judge has recorded the compromise and passed the decree in terms of the said compromise on 1.10.2004. As per the said compromise, the respondents 3 and 4 were given houses situated at Karimnagar, which are valuable properties. Petitioner was given certain lands at Chintal Thana for her maintenance during her lifetime and thereafter respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to succeed to the said lands. The relevant clauses 3 and 4 in the decree in O.S.No.80 of 2004 relating to lands, which have been given for maintenance of the petitioner are as follows: “3. That the agricultural land in Sy.No.46 measuring Ac.0-30 guntas, Sy.No.189 measuring Ac.7-11 guntas, Sy.No.409 measuring Ac.1-39 guntas, Sy.No.410 measuring Ac.1-28 guntas, Sy.No.307 admeasuring Ac.14-24 guntas, which are described as Sl.Nos.3, 7, 8, 9 and 1 in part-I of plaint Schedule-B and the house No.1-77 (part-II of plaint Schedule-B) situated at Chintal Thana village of Sircilla mandal be and hereby allotted to defendant No.3 – Regulapati Satyamma towards her share with limited rights and she is only entitled to enjoy the possession of the said items and shall be entitled to the income and profits arising from the said properties but she is not entitled to alienate, encumbrance of the said properties during her lifetime and after her death the said property shall devolve on the defendants 1 and 2 with equal shares. 4. That some of the lands of the plaint schedule-B properties allotted to defendant No.3 are likely to be acquired by the Government, if so acquired by the Government, the defendant No.3 is entitled to receive the compensation, but she shall deposit the said amount in any schedule bank in her name and she shall be entitled to receive the interest thereon till her death, after her death the principal amount so deposited in the bank along with interest if any be and hereby entitled the defendants 1 and 2 with equal shares”. According to the petitioner, as per the compromise decree, she is entitled to enjoy the lands during her lifetime and if the lands are acquired by the Government, she is entitled to receive compensation. However, the said compensation has to be deposited in a nationalized bank and she is entitled to receive the interest accrued thereon and after her lifetime, respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to withdraw the principal amounts. There are no disputes whatsoever regarding the compromise decree and it is binding on all the parties. According to the petitioner, she is in possession and enjoyment of the lands even prior to the decree as the legal representative of late Balkishan Rao. While that being so, the Government acquired the land and houses situated at Chintal Thana village for the purpose of construction of Mid Maner Dam. The first respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same was published in newspapers. The second respondent has been appointed as Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award. Government also acquired the subject lands and some other lands belonging to petitioner’s late husband Balkishan Rao. Petitioner was under the impression that the official respondents would conduct a proper enquiry as to title and possession of the land and payment of compensation. Petitioner represented to the second respondent regarding the compromise decree and other lands of her late husband and her entitlement as to compensation. Though the petitioner made several representations, the second respondent did not consider the same and orally informed that the names of respondents 3 and 4 have been included in the revenue records, hence her claim cannot be considered. Therefore, petitioner got issued a notice on 8.11.2007 under Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sircilla to furnish the information regarding the orders affecting mutation in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and other relevant documents regarding applications filed by respondents 3 and 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sircilla has furnished information that the respondents 3 and 4 have filed application for mutation on 16.11.2005 and mutation orders were passed on 13.12.2005 and mutation was effected on 16.11.2005 in File No.B/940/2005. The Mandal Revenue Officer further informed that the application filed by respondents 3 and 4 on 16.11.2005 and other supportive documents are not available in the office. According to the petitioner, mutation was effected without notice to her and contrary to the terms and conditions of the decree passed in O.S.No.80 of 2004. Challenging the said orders, petitioner filed revision before the Joint Collector. It appears, the first respondent had included the names of respondents 3 and 4 as pattedars in the draft notification as per the entries in the revenue records. Since the name of the petitioner was not reflected in the said notification as pattedar, she got issued a legal notice on 17.4.2007 informing regarding the compromise decree and other claims, but the second respondent through his reply letter dated 30.11.2007 stated that “your request to the extent of Sy.No.189, 409, 410 and 307 will be considered if the pattedari rights in the revenue records are found confirmed in favour of your client during the award enquiry”. The second respondent has taken a decision to pay compensation to respondents 3 and 4 as their names found in the revenue records. In fact, second respondent has paid compensation to respondents 3 and 4 for some of the lands standing in the name of petitioner’s husband. In fact, respondents 3 and 4 have suppressed the real facts and judgment in O.S.No.80 of 2004 and sought for mutation and the Mandal Revenue Officer, without giving any notice to the petitioner and without waiting for statutory period of three months, has passed mutation orders in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in utter violation of Rules 9 to 14 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Rules, 1971. The entries in the revenue records have to be relied when there is no contra evidence or disputes regarding the entries. If there is any document, which is contrary to revenue record, the entries in the revenue records cannot be relied upon. In the instant case, petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 have entered into a compromise. However, it appears, the second respondent without issuing any notice and without following the procedure prescribed under law, passed orders in favour of respondents 3 and 4. The second respondent filed a detailed counter stating that though there is such a decree in O.S.No.80 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, the entries relating to mutation are implemented in revenue record in December 2005 and there is no contra evidence or disputes till the date of Award i.e. 31.10.2007 and as such the entries have to be relied upon. It is for the petitioner to produce the documents if any with her, which are contrary to revenue records in time and to get corrected wrong mutation entries. Heard both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. At the outset, it may be necessary to notice that though no counter has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 fairly conceded that they have no objection for passing award and paying compensation to the petitioner as per the judgment and decree in O.S.No.80 of 2004. However, it is stated that respondents 3 to 5 have no objection for depositing the amount into any nationalized bank and the petitioner drawing interest there against. However, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8 (impleaded parties) strenuously contended that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.80 of 2004 is a collusive one obtained by petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 and they have filed suit in O.S.No.28 of 2008 for partition of the properties before the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. However, in this regard, it may be necessary to notice that the suit in O.S.No.28 of 2008 is filed for partition and I.A.No.55 of 2009 was filed by respondents 6 to 8 seeking to restrain petitioner and other respondents from withdrawing the compensation in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule property. The part of ‘B’ schedule property was earmarked towards life interest of the petitioner and it is the subject matter of this writ petition. The learned I Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar, after elaborate discussion held that respondents 3 to 5 utterly failed to establish any prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour to restrain the petitioner from withdrawing the interest against the award amount. Further, it was made clear that if in case petitioner withdrew the said award amount, the same shall be kept in any nationalized bank till the disposal of the suit and she is only entitled to withdraw the interest accrued thereon. It was further made clear that if any violations of this direction will be viewed seriously. I am of the opinion that as per the terms of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.80 of 2004 and the order made in I.A.No.55 of 2009 in O.S.No.28 of 2008, petitioner is entitled to draw interest portion of the compensation amount awarded in respect of the subject lands. It is clear that the second respondent has not properly considered all these aspects and passed the impugned award referring the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent Civil Court. It appears, the second respondent also played into the hands of respondents 3 to 8 in creating hurdles and not taking notice of the situation properly. It is unfortunate that there is such a dispute between the 82 years old mother and her children and grand children and she is not allowed to draw the interest for her bare livelihood. The facts would speak for themselves the way in which the old lady is being humiliated at this age. Under these peculiar circumstances, if the award passed by the second respondent is allowed to continue, the petitioner may not be able to reap the fruits during her lifetime of the arrangements made by her late husband. In fact it is the pious obligation of respondents 3 to 5, as sons and daughter and respondents 6 to 8, as grand children of petitioner to keep away themselves from this unwanted litigation and allow the petitioner to live her life peacefully. For all the above reasons, the award passed by the second respondent in respect of the subject lands is quashed. Further, the second respondent is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount in respect of the subject lands in any nationalized bank in the name of the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the petitioner shall be allowed to draw the interest there against during her lifetime. It is made clear that the respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to their share of the amounts deposited in the bank after the lifetime of the petitioner and the respondents 6 to 8 are also entitled for the said amount subject to the result of the suit filed by them. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 20.3.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3279 of 2008 20.3.2009