THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15317 of 2007 Between:
Chillimuntha panchata and
DATE: 25.06.2010
…Petitioner The Sub Divisional Magistrate/Special Assistant Agent Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and another …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI S.MADAN MOHAN RAO FOR SRI V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1: AGP FOR HOME COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2: SRI T.RAMACHANDER RAO FOR MR.M.RAMALINGESWARA REDDY THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.15317 of 2007
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to entertain O.S.No.6 of 2007 filed by respondent No.2.
The petitioner claims to be a non-tribal and owner of the land admeasuring Ac.2.10 guntas in Survey No.39 of Gommugudem Village, Kukunoor Mandal. The said land was stated to have been acquired by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Paloncha Unit, for the purpose of Godawari Flood victims and that after enquiry, a sum of Rs.1,29,375/- was stated to have been awarded towards compensation in his favour. While so, respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.6 of 2007 for perpetual injunction against the petitioner restraining him from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Along with the suit, respondent No.2 filed I.A.No.7 of 2007 for attachment of compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.1.05 guntas in Survey No.39. The said application was allowed vide order, dated 03.02.2007 passed by respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
At the hearing, Sri S.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel representing Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that very entertaining of the suit by respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction as such a suit is barred under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). He also submitted that when once the land was acquired under the said Act, respondent No.2 can avail her remedies only under the provisions of the Act.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. A perusal of the plaint filed in the aforesaid suit reveals that respondent No.2 is claiming ownership over the property and consequently, it is her case that she is entitled to receive the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The prayer in the plaint reads as under:
“a) restraining the defendant, their henchmen, servants, agents, or anybody on his behalf, from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property;
b) xxxx ……”
However, in I.A.No.7 of 2007, respondent No.2 prayed for attachment of the compensation awarded by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, and to deposit the said amount in the Court. While there cannot be any dispute that the claims for receipt of compensation arising under the provisions of the Act are required to be settled through the mechanism provided under the Act, respondent No.2 has not questioned the land acquisition proceedings or sought for adjudication of her claim for compensation. Though there is a reference to acquisition of the land and her entitlement to receive compensation, the prayer sought for by respondent No.2 was to restrain the petitioner from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In the ultimate analysis, such prayer may be wholly misconceived and may not be granted by respondent No.1. But, it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable. As regards the order passed by respondent No.1 in I.A.No.7 of 2007, though the petitioner filed the same as a material paper, no relief has been claimed by him questioning the said order in the writ petition. Therefore, in my opinion, the present writ petition, which is in the nature of Prohibition, cannot be entertained. The petitioner is entitled to contest the suit and the I.A. filed by respondent No.2 by raising all legally permissible pleas including the one of non-maintainability of the suit and the I.A. filed before respondent No.1.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner in terms of the observations made above.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.19337 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th JUNE, 2010.
kvni