THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI W.P.No.27206 of 2008 Between:
Gaddam Venkateshwar Goud PETITIONER AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Sub-Collector, Asifabad, Adilabad District, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to Case No.G/549/2006, dated 21.07.2008 on the file of the Sub Collector, Asifabad, Adilabad District, 1st respondent herein, and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and consequentially seeks a direction to refer the matter pertaining to payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of Sy.No.22/A of Kamalapur Village, Bhimini Mandal, Adilabad District, to the competent Civil Court in view of the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.
2. Heard Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and Sri K. Lakshman, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. According to the petitioner, in the year 1971 an extent of Ac.3.23 gts., situated in Sy.No.22/A of Kamalapur Village, Bhimini Mandal, Adilabad District, was assigned in his favour vide File No.A3/469/70 and the same was recorded in Paisal Patti, Khwmami and Izzaffar Pahani for the year 1972-73 and the same continued till 1995-96 and due to drought conditions in the area, he shifted to Chandruvelli Village in search of livelihood. During the year 2005- 2006, the District Collector, Adilabad, issued a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, for acquiring the said land for construction of Kamalapur Dam, mentioning the name of the 3rd respondent as owner, whose name is recorded as pattadar and enjoyer.
4. Seeking rectification of entries and for deletion of the name of the 3rd respondent from the Pahanis for the years 1995-96 to 2005-06, and for issuance of Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds for seeking compensation under the Act, the petitioner submitted a petition on 5.07.2006.
5. Subsequently, complaining inaction on the part of the Mandal Revenue Officer, petitioner filed W.P.No.18753 of 2006 and this Court on 19.09.2006, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimini Mandal, Adilabad District-2nd respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 5.07.2006. The Mandal Revenue Officer, pursuant to the said order, passed an order vide Rc.No.B/863/2006, dated 02.12.2006, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent-Sub-Collector, Adilabad. The Sub- Collector, vide order in Case No.G/549/2006, dated 21.07.2008, directed the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to seek declaration with regard to the rights over possession of the land.
6. Complaining the way of disposal of the appeal as erroneous, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court on 03.08.2009 issued Rule Nisi and responding to the same, counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents, denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
7. Contentions of Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
i) The order of the 1st respondent is erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971.
ii) The 1st respondent totally misunderstood the issue and passed an order, creating ambiguous situation.
iii) The 1st respondent grossly erred in granting no relief in favour of the petitioner, who filed appeal before him under Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘1971 Act’).
iv) The 1st respondent grossly erred in issuing directions to file declaratory suit before the Civil Court in respect of non-existing land, which is under submersion.
8. Contentions and submissions of Learned Government Pleader for Revenue -
i) The writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy under Section 9 of 1971 Act.
ii) The impugned order is in conformity with 1971 Act.
iii) The 1st respondent granted status quo only with respect to the entries but not with respect to the land as pleaded by the petitioner.
9. Contentions of Sri M. Lakshman, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent –
i) Against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 2.12.2006 to the extent of holding that the 3rd respondent failed to file evidence as to how he came to his ownership and to the extent of requesting the 1st respondent to issue suitable orders for resumption, the 3rd respondent filed appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent did not pass any orders.
ii) The 1st respondent instead of paying compensation directed the 3rd respondent to approach the Civil Court for declaration with regard to rights over the possession of the land.
10. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions, now the question that arises for consideration of this Court is – whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief in the present writ petition?
11. As evident from the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the primary authority refused to believe the version of the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent with regard to the title to the subject property and rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the said order before the 1st respondent-Sub- Collector and the 1st respondent directed the 3rd respondent to approach the civil Court for declaration and also directed the Tahsildar to maintain status quo. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order is a result of total non-application of mind and non-consideration of the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent-Sub-Collector manifestly discloses that the 1st respondent declined to respond in favour of the petitioner, obviously, keeping in view the nature of controversy and rival claims before him and accordingly relegated the party to the Civil Court, evidently, keeping the provisions of Section 8(2) of 1971 Act. It is to be noted at this juncture that mere entries in the revenue records would not, by themselves, be conclusive for determination of title. Another significant aspect, which needs mention at this juncture, is that a copy of the award bearing No.B/2010/03, dated 26.03.2007, passed in respect of the said property, which is placed on record by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, clearly shows the degree of care taken by the authorities wherein the Land Acquisition Officer, as a responsible quasi judicial authority, provided a safeguard, keeping in view the interest of all by saying as follows:
“Hence compensation payable for the land is ordered to be kept in civil deposits till the pattadar comes up with a proper claim and supporting evidence of title.”
12. Therefore this Court does not find any reasonable justification to meddle with the impugned order, by way of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even though the order of the 1st respondent-Sub-Collector is not happily worded.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner herein as well as the 3rd respondent to institute suits before the competent Civil Court, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for declaration of their title to the said property. It is also made clear that the payment of compensation shall be made only after the decision of the Civil Court. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
22nd August, 2014 Js.
Note: C.C. in one week