Telangana High Court

WP/32733/2010 of M.Gopal Reddy Vs State of A.P on 31 December 2010

NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.32733 of 2010 Date : 31-12-2010 Between : M.Gopal Reddy and Others .. Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others .. Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

W.P.No.32733 of 2010

Date : 31-12-2010

Between :

M.Gopal Reddy and Others .. Petitioners

And

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others ..

Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the Awardpassed by the 3[rd] Respondent/Land Acquisition Officer & SpecialDeputy Collector (L.A.), Unit-1, Outer Ring Road Project,Hyderabad under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in FileNo.LA/Unit-I/152-1/2006, dated 17-03-2009, referring the award tothe Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land AcquisitionAct, as illegal.

2. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute ownersand possessors of Ac.3.05 guntas of land situate in Sy.No.36 ofMankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said land along with other lands, was acquired for formation ofOuter Ring Road, Phase-II in Maheswaram Mandal in pursuanceof a Draft Notification, dated 25-03-2006 issued under Section 4(1)of the Act. After conducting enquiry under Section 5-A andPublication of Declaration under Section 6, the 3[rd] Respondent conducted award proceedings after issuingnotices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. In response to thenotices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, therespondents 6 to 16 filed a petition on 21-07-2007 stating that they are the protected tenants of the landsituate in Sy.No.36. In support of their claim, they filed a truecopy of the P.T. Register for the year 1950 issued by the MandalRevenue Officer, Maheswaram. In view of the disputed claimsbetween the petitioners and Respondents 6 to 16, the LandAcquisition Officer referred the matter to Civil Court for adjudication under Section 30 and to deposit the amount ofcompensation in Civil Court under Section 31 of the Act. Challenging the Reference so made by the Land AcquisitionOfficer, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.

Page 1 of 2

3. Heard Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionersand the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing forRespondents 1 to 5.

4. Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, whilereiterating that the petitioners are the absolute owners being thepurchasers, would contend that since the land was an inam land,Occupancy Certificate was granted by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District vide ProceedingsNo.J/2737/1990, dated 04-01-1992 in favour of their vendors viz.,Mahmooda Begum and Ameena Begum under the provisions ofA.P. (Telangana) Area Abolition of Inam Act, 1955. The land beingan inam land, the claim of the Respondents 6 to 16 as protectedtenants is not tenable. He would also contend that the copy of theP.T. Register submitted by Respondents 6 to 16 is not genuine,therefore the Land Acquisition Officer ought not to have reliedupon the said document for ordering reference to the Civil Court. He would further contend that the Respondents are not entitled forcompensation and they objected the rights of the petitioners withmala fide intention. The counsel would therefore contend that thereference is not sustainable.

5. Under Section 30 of the Act when the amount ofcompensation has been settled under Section 11, if any disputearises as to the apportionment of the same or as to the persons towhom the same or any part thereof is payable, the authority mayrefer such dispute to the decision of the Court.

6. In the instant case, as noticed above, the respondents 6 to16 have raised a dispute that they are the protected tenants andthat they are entitled for a share. The Land Acquisition Officerhaving considered the same thought it fit that the said dispute isliable to be referred to the Civil Court. Whether the claim of theRespondents 6 to 16 as protected tenants is genuine or not withreference to the P.T. Register could not have been undertaken bythe Land Acquisition Officer in view of the summary nature ofenquiry under Section 30 of the Act.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the reference of award foradjudication under Section 30 ordered by the 3[rd] Respondentcannot said to be illegal. There are no merits in the Writ Petition.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall beno order as to costs.

31-12-2010.

_________________NOUSHAD ALI, J.

skmrNote : Issue C.C. in one week. B/O skmr

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead