IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.32862 of 2014 Between:
Aqua-prime International (India) Limited, 16/377, Srinivasa Agraharam, Nellore, Rep. by its Managing Director, P. Ramesh Reddy, S/o. P.V. Subba Reddy, Aged about 62 years, R/o. Srinivasa Agraharam, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
.. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Land Acquisition Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.32862 of 2014 ORDER:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued on 07.12.2012 proposing to acquire several extents of land for establishment of Multi Model Logistic Park by the Government of India Enterprises through Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Nellore. The acquisition included the lands in Survey Nos.581-2, 582-1, 582-2 and 583-2 to a total extent of Ac. 56.29 cents in Epuru-1A Village, Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. The award enquiry was held on 22.11.2013, but so far, no award is passed. On 08.09.2014, notice was issued calling upon the owners of the lands to give their consent with regard to fixation of market value. This notice was addressed to Smt. Pokkireddy Thanvi, W/o. Niranjana Kumar Reddy, who is the 4th respondent herein.
3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner purchased Ac. 15.00 cents of land on 09.07.1992 in Survey No.581-2 in Epuru bit I Village, Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, and the land which is under acquisition is the land which the petitioner purchased. It is further contended that the petitioner’s vendor purchased the same land on 13.08.1990. However, after the purchase, the vendor of the petitioner alleged to have executed unregistered Re-Conveyance Deed on 01.11.1990 in favour of his vendor. As a consequence to the said deed of conveyance, said person executed unregistered Gift Settlement Deed in favour of his daughter on 05.09.1992. Based on the same, the 4th respondent obtained pattadar passbook and title deeds and mutated her name in the revenue records. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the District Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, SPSR Nellore District (2nd respondent) and the Joint Collector by his order, dated 03.01.2011, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District (3rd respondent) to dispose of the appeal on merits. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by his order, dated 13.06.2011, cancelled the pattadar passbook and title deeds issued in favour of the 4th respondent. The appeal filed against this order by the 4th respondent was rejected by the Joint Collector. W.P.No.29583 of 2011 filed against the said decisions was also dismissed by this Court by judgment, dated 24.07.2012. Therefore, the vesting of property in the hands of the petitioner has become final.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the property belongs to the petitioner, it is illegal on the part of the revenue authorities in notifying the property for acquisition as belonging to the 4th respondent and issuing notices and correspondence in favour of the 4th respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revenue authorities are now actively taking steps to pay compensation on the above said land to the detriment of the petitioner.
5. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that the land acquisition proceedings are yet to be concluded. An award enquiry was conducted on 22.11.2013, but so far no award is passed.
6. Learned counsel representing the 4th respondent submits that what is shown in Section 4(1) notification is Survey No.581/2 with an extent of Ac. 20.00 cents and it may not be the same property which the petitioner is claiming and, therefore, the petitioner is no way concerned with the property which is notified for acquisition.
7. It is not shown by either of the parties as to the land which the petitioner is claiming referring to survey number as 581 is not the same as notified for acquisition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same property which was purchased by the petitioner on 09.07.1992 is now notified for acquisition.
8. In the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no interest in the property. As per the provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act, the person interested also should be given opportunity of hearing before passing an award determining the amount of compensation as well as the persons who are entitled to receive compensation. Thus, to identify the person entitled to receive compensation on the land acquired, it is necessary for the Land Acquisition Officer to enquire into the ownership of land under acquisition. In the interest of justice, it is necessary to hear all persons who claim ownership. Since so far, no award is passed and the petitioner is claiming ownership by referring to the various documents, in the interest of justice, the respondent authorities should give him an opportunity of hearing to establish that the property which is proposed for acquisition is the property which belongs to him
9. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to give opportunity of hearing to both parties to present their version on the ownership of land on extent of land notified for acquisition and on consideration of the individual claims, the Land Acquisition Officer shall decide the description of property as notified for acquisition such as relevant survey number, extent and the person entitled to receive compensation. It is always open to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute to civil Court, if the documents presented before him do not give clear title in favour of either of the parties and there are serious disputes requiring adjudication by competent civil Court.
10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 6th December, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.32862 of 2014 Date: 6th December, 2014 KL