THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.18237 of 2004 April , 2011 Between: Dr.K.Rajeswar Rao ... Petitioner And The Special Collector, S.R.S.P. and S.L.B.C. D.C.C., Tarnaka, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.18237 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner – a retired Professor; of Kakatiya University, Warangal, initially filed the writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not passing further orders in response to the letter dated 18.2.1992 of the second respondent as illegal and opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to pay the compensation for the acquired land admeasuring Acs.1.04 guntas in S.No.219 situated at Mustialapally village of Atmakur Mandal in Warangal District (hereafter, the petition schedule land). Subsequently the petitioner filed an application being W.P.M.P.No.7693 of 2005 for amending the prayer in the writ petition. In effect he prayed to set aside the proceedings dated 22.6.1992 of the first respondent and the memorandum dated 09.9.1992 of the second respondent as illegal and for consequential direction to refer the matter to the Civil Court by depositing the compensation amount for the petition schedule land. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows. The petitioner is owner of land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas in S.No.219 situated at Mustialapally village. In 1986, an extent of Acs.0.38 guntas was acquired for Kakatiya main canal under the award No.4/1986-87, dated 17.9.1986. The petitioner was paid compensation for the said land. Again the petition schedule land was acquired for U.T. Tail Channel. This time the compensation was paid to Sri Bikshapathi, a resident of Mustialapally village. The petitioner submitted representation objecting for the same. The second respondent enquired into the matter and sent a report vide letter dated 18.2.1992 informing the first respondent that the request of the petitioner for compensation for Acs.0.30 guntas may be considered. Alleging that the first respondent failed to respond, he filed W.P.No.15316 of 1992. This Court disposed of the same on 12.3.2004 recording the submission of the Government Pleader that an award was already passed. Liberty was given to the petitioner to work out his remedies available under law. Yet again the petitioner filed the instant writ petition contending that the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition do not come in the way of the first respondent passing appropriate orders for payment of compensation as opined by the second respondent. The first respondent filed an affidavit in obedience to the orders of this Court dated 08.10.2004. He also filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that after receiving the letter of the second respondent, the record of the award was verified and it was noticed that the name of the petitioner did not figure either as a pattadar or as an occupant. Only in 1989, after passing of the award in 1988, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records vide R.D.O’s proceedings dated 08.8.1989. Therefore a letter bearing No.B2/1471/91, dated 22.6.1992 was sent to the petitioner advising him to file a suit. He was also informed that a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) is pending. The second respondent in turn intimated the petitioner by memo No.C/689/87, dated 09.9.1992. Adverting to the proceedings for acquiring petition schedule land, it is stated that the petitioner has not responded in time claiming himself as owner of the land and after the award has been passed on 28.10.1988, he filed representation seeking compensation. The petitioner’s name was not found in the revenue records and only after passing of the award that his name was mutated in the revenue records. Various proceedings under the Act that are fait accompli are narrated in the counter affidavit as follows. … that the contention of the petitioner that the Land Acquisition Officer has not followed the procedure is not correct. In fact the Land Acquisition Officer has followed the procedure as laid down under Land Acquisition Act duly issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which has been published in A.P. Gazette No.4 on 11.5.1988 and also published in two daily Newspapers i.e., 1) Visalandhra dated 22.5.1988, and 2) Udayam dated 23.5.1988 and substance of the 4(1) Notification has been published in the village on 18.6.1988. The said Notification was issued and published on the basis of relevant revenue records i.e., pahani for the year 1986-87 according to which the name of the petitioner was not entered either as pattadar or an occupier at the time of passing of Award by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is a fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has issued notices to all the persons interested, the owner and the occupant as required under Section 9(1) & 10 and 9(3) & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act and passed Award in respect of Sy.No.219 to an extent of Acs.1.04 gts., in favaour of G.Bixapathi, Son of Lachaiah, whose name was shown as occupant in the Revenue Records by recording the Statement in respect of the said Survey Number in the presence of the Village Sarpanch and other Occupants and the same is herewith filed for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. On the basis of the deposition, the name of Sri Bixapathi has been included and compensation was paid to him. Moreover from the perusal of the Revenue Records, the petitioner became occupant of some portion in Sy.No.219 of Mustyalapally village as per the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal vide proceedings No.B/2089/89 dated 8.8.1989 i.e., after the Award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. It clearly shows that he was not an occupant or pattadar for the said Survey Number at the relevant time when the Award was passed. Hence the contention of the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner filed reply affidavit along with the application for amendment. He admits to receiving the communication dated 09.9.1992 of the second respondent informing that he may seek redressal in the Court of law. There is no specific denial regarding the averments in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent extracted herein above. The contention of the State that the procedure established under law has been duly followed remains uncontraverted. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Revenue (LA). The Government Pleader has also placed before this Court the statements made by the petitioner and Bikshapathi before the LAO, a copy of the award and a copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.15316 of 1992. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition claiming that he is the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas in S.No.219, that an extent of Acs.0.38 guntas was acquired in 1986 for the purpose of digging Kakatiya main canal and that another extent of Acs.1.04 guntas was acquired in 1988 for excavation of UT-Tail Channel of Kakatiya main canal. His grievance is that though he is rightful owner compensation was paid to Bikshapathi, who is not at all concerned with the land. The first impression from the narration of petitioner’s case is one of denial of legitimate entitlement of the petitioner. But a closure look shows that it is not so. When the award was passed in 1988 acquiring of Acs.1.04 guntas, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition in September, 2004 after long lapse of 16 years. Without any further enquiry the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the limited ground of delay and laches. After the award was passed, the petitioner made application seeking compensation. He did not seek reference to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The second respondent enquired into the same and sent a report vide letter dated 18.2.1992 purportedly giving finding in his favour. This was got enquired into by the first respondent and by communication dated 22.6.1992, the first respondent informed the second respondent that the title dispute cannot be decided in the proceedings and the petitioner was advised to file a suit. The second respondent in turn communicated the same to the petitioner by letter dated 09.9.1992. The petitioner did not choose to specifically challenge the same till March, 2005. After receiving the communication that his claim cannot be accepted, at that stage itself the petitioner could have sought for reference under Section 30 of the Act. He did not do so. From this a reasonable inference can be drawn that the petitioner did not pursue the matter properly at the stage of getting mutation in revenue records after purchasing the land and though he is aware of acquisition proceedings he did not put up claim in time. The Counsel for the petitioner, however, attempted to draw some support from the earlier writ petition being W.P.No.15316 of 1992. The affidavit in that writ petition does not in any manner mitigate in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of the said affidavit and the counter affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector (LAO) would show that the petitioner was very much aware of the award passed by the second respondent determining the compensation payable to Bikshapathi. Instead of seeking direction from this Court to refer the dispute to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act or challenging the award, the petitioner chose to claim compensation based on the letter of the second respondent addressed to the first respondent on 18.2.1992. The counter affidavit filed therein contains an averment that during the award enquiry Bikshapathi alone claimed compensation and there was no rival claimant and that the petitioner did not put up any claim. A further averment was made that the petitioner’s name was entered as an occupant in the revenue records only in August, 1989. From this, it becomes clear that the petitioner was very much aware of the LA proceedings and presumably for the reason that his name did not appear in the revenue records as an occupant, he did not claim compensation. He chose to file a representation before the second respondent only after the award was passed. When there is no dispute that all the necessary formalities were followed before passing the award, the action of the second respondent in passing the award cannot be faulted. In the award enquiry, the petitioner gave a statement wherein he claimed right and interest to an extent of Acs.0.0½ gunta only whereas in his statement Bikshapathi claimed compensation for Acs.1.04 guntas. In the award proceedings No.C/689/87, dated 28.10.1988 the LAO accepted the claim of Bikshapathi observing that no one appeared claiming title over the land except Bikshapathi and, therefore, apportionment is made in his favour. Having claimed amounts for Acs. 0.0½ gunta, he cannot now turn around and claim compensation for the entire petition schedule land. This Court, however, hastens to add that if the petitioner disputes the title of Bikshapathi, this Court is not the proper forum to agitate the matter. He has to approach the Civil Court and claim compensation from Bikshapathi, who is not made as a party to this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and does not warrant any interference. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed, without any order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April , 2011 YS