THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.14808 OF 2011
18.01.2012
Sri Guruvammagari Santhosh Reddy and two others.
The State of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development, SecretariatHyderabad and two others.
Counsel for PETITIONERS: MR. M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Counsel for RESPONDENT No.2: G.P. FOR LAND ACQUISITION
Counsel for RESPONDENT No.3: SRI B.VIJAYSEN REDDY.
? Cases referred
1991 (1) ALT 176 (DB)
ORDER:
Petitioners 1 and 2 are minor children of the third petitioner.
Petitioners 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.1037 of 2000 through their mother, in the Court
of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy
District, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties,
against their father and paternal grand mother. The suit schedule property
included Acs.7.19 gts of land including Acs.4.06 gts situated in Survey No.436/A
and 438/A of Vattinagulapally Village of Rajendranagar Mandal. A preliminary
decree was passed on 16.08.2005 directing that petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled
for 2/6th share in the suit schedule properties. I.A.No.341 of 2008 is pending
for final decree.
The first respondent issued notification, dated 13.12.2005, under Section
4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {"the Act" for brevity}, proposing to
acquire Acs.11.31 gts land in Survey No.438/A of Vattinagulapally Village for
the purpose of laying outer ring road around Hyderabad. Declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was published on 20.06.2006. The petitioners were issued
notice under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act and they participated in the award
enquiry. The Land Acquisition Officer, the second respondent, however, passed
an award, dated 14.11.2007, paying the entire compensation for the land in
Survey No.438/A to the third respondent.
The petitioners contend that there was absolutely no justification on the
part of the second respondent in passing an award without issuing notice to them
under section 12 (2) of the Act and paying the entire compensation to the third
respondent. It is stated that even if there exists any rival claim from the
third respondent, the only course open to the second respondent was to refer the
matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. They seek the relief in
the form of direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners
apart from referring the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for
enhancement thereof.
The second respondent filed counter affidavit admitting the fact that the
notification under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act was issued for declaration of
land in Survey No.438/A of Vattinagulapally Village. It is, however, stated
that the Revenue records reveal that the compensation was paid to the third
respondent. They denied their obligation to issue notice under Section 12 (2)
of the Act or to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act.
The third respondent filed counter narrating the manner in which the land
was acquired in Survey No.438/A.
Heard Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy,
learned counsel, for the respondents.
Thousands of acres of land in several villages around the city of
Hyderabad were acquired for the purpose of laying outer ring road.
Notifications were issued separately for different extents. Notification as
regards the land in Survey No.438/A of Vattinagulapally is one such.
The family of which the petitioners herein are members, held an extent of
Acs.4.06 gts in Survey No.438/A. Obviously, on the basis of the information
received in the course of verification, the second respondent issued
notification under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act to the petitioners. The
third petitioner, representing her minor children, submitted a detailed claim
before the second respondent. As a matter of fact, in his award dated
14.11.2007, the second respondent made a detailed reference to the claim made by
the petitioners. However, he paid the compensation to the third respondent, by
simply making a reference to a claim made by it.
This Court takes serious exception to the manner in which the second
respondent, the then Land Acquisition Officer, has proceeded in the matter. It
hardly needs any mention that if there exist rival claims for compensation, the
only option open to the Land Acquisition Officer is to refer the matter under
Section 30 of the Act. There may be instances where more than one claim is made
for compensation, but the title of one of them is so clinching and absolute that
hardly can be doubted and the claim made by the other claimants is too feeble.
In such a case, compensation can be paid to the party whose title is almost
proved. However, in such rare cases, the Land Acquisition Officer must
demonstrate the absolute nature of the title of the person whom he proposes to
pay compensation and the feebleness of the one whose claim has to be rejected
illumine.
In the instant case, the claim of the petitioners was supported by a
preliminary decree passed by the competent Court of law. The second respondent
has also taken note of the same. When it came to the question of claim made by
the third respondent, hardly any discussion was made about the source of its
title or the manner of its title. The relevant paragraph reads as under.
"M/s.Krishna Greenlands Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad has filed claim petition for
an extent of Ac.11-31 gts in respect of Sy.No.438 of Vattinagulapally Village
coming under acquisition for Outer Ring Road. As per the documents furnished by
above firm they are the pattedars and possessors of land under acquisition. As
the above firm has not filed consent affidavit for sanction of compensation
under package deal they are eligible for payment of compensation U/s.11(1) of
the L.A. Act. Accordingly M/s. Krishna Greenlands Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, is
awarded compensation of Rs.1,18,77,443/- (Rupees One Crores Eighteen Lakhs
Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Three Only) for an extent of Ac.f11-31
gts in Sy.No.438."
Added to this, the petitioners were not put on notice under Section 12 (2)
of the Act. The procedure adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer was totally
objectionable and serious doubts arise as to his impartial approach to the
matter. It is on account of his lopsided approach that the petitioners, who are
minors, were deprived of what was due to them.
In Shyam Rao v. LAO (Spl.)1, a Division Bench of this Court took the view
that in matters of this nature, reference under Section 18 can be required to be
made and the compensation paid contrary to law, to one of the parties must be
recovered.
In the ordinary course of things, reference to a Civil Court, in the event
of there being rival claims is to be made under Section 30 of the Act. That,
however, is when the Land Acquisition Officer himself feels the necessity. The
remedy provided for under Section 30 of the Act cannot be said to be the sole
repository for determination of rival claims under the Act. Section 18 of the
Act also provides for reference being made for determination of the entitlement
of the various claimants, to receive the compensation. That would be in
addition to the determination of adequacy or otherwise of the compensation.
One aspect, which needs to be taken into account is that the petitioners
herein and in particular petitioners 1 and 2 are not declared as the absolute
owners of any definite extent of land in Survey No.438/A. It is only in the
final decree proceedings, that their definite extent of property would be
determined. In a given situation, equities are to be worked out. This Court is
of the view that a reference to be made under Section 18 of the Act and
adjudication thereof, along with the pending final decree proceedings would meet
the ends of justice. Further, the third respondent can be required to furnish
bank guarantee for an amount representing the value of Ac.1.16 gts of the
acquired land, to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The reference needs
to be dealt with by a Court which has pecuniary jurisdiction as regards both the
matters. Further, the pending final decree proceedings need to be transferred
to the same court.
For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed directing that
(a) The second respondent shall make a reference to Civil Court, in respect of
award, dated 14.11.2007, as regard the claims between the petitioners on the one
hand and the third respondent on the other hand, by addressing a letter to the
learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District;
(b) The learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, shall allot the
reference to a Court of competent pecuniary jurisdiction and he shall also
direct to transfer I.A.No.341 of 2008 in O.S.No.1037 of 2000 to the same Court
to which reference is made; and ensure that both the proceedings are heard
together;
(c) The third respondent shall furnish bank guarantee representing the
compensation for Ac.1.16 gts of land within four {4} weeks from the date on
which notice is issued to it in the reference; and
(d) The fourth respondent is entitled to participate in the final decree
proceedings limited to working out the equities. It shall be open to the
petitioners to put forward their contention as to entitlement as well as for
enhancement of compensation.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)
18th January 2012
