IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.7465 of 2014 Between:
K. Suresh Babu, S/o. K. Prabhakara Rao, Aged 39 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Gollapuram, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District & another .. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.7465 of 2014 ORDER:
With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, this writ petition is considered and disposed of.
2. On 14.10.2010, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued proposing to acquire Ac. 1338.21 cents of land in Gollapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapuram District, for public purpose. This notification also covers land to an extent of Ac. 2.91 cents in Survey No.311-1, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. Enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act was conducted and based on the findings under Section 5(A) enquiry, draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 01.06.2011. Thereafter, consent award was drawn on 07.11.2013 and the same was approved by the competent authority on 05.12.2013. In the land acquisition proceedings, the name of Hanumanthappa was shown against this land. At the stage of passing of consent award, the names of legal heirs of Hanumanthappa as well as the 5th respondent are shown. The consent award covers land to an extent of Ac. 2.18 cents in this survey number.
3. The petitioners claim that they purchased Ac. 2.91 cents in Survey No.311-1 in the year 2012 and the Deed of Conveyance was registered on 01.03.2012, which was assigned document No.2218 of 2012. The petitioners purchased from Sanjeevarayappa. The petitioners claim that subsequently when they came to know that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated and in the land acquisition proceedings, the names of the vendor of the petitioners were not reflected, they filed objections. Their objections were not considered and now, the respondents are taking steps to disburse the compensation determined on the land acquired. As with reference to title, a dispute is raised. Hence, the petitioners were compelled to institute O.S.No.14 of 2014, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Hindupur. The suit is in the form of declaration of title. The petitioners also filed I.A.No.17 of 2014 seeking temporary injunction and the Court has granted order of status quo.
4. In this writ petition, the petitioners claim mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 taking steps to disburse the compensation amount in respect of the land to an extent of Ac. 2.91 cents in Survey No.311-1 and seeking a further direction to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners purchased the land on payment of sale consideration and, therefore, the title has validly passed on to the petitioners in the year 2012 and that the land acquisition proceedings are initiated without disclosing the name of the petitioner in Section 4(1) notification, in draft declaration and not included his name in the consent award passed on 07.11.2013. He, therefore, contends that the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated on this ground. He further submits that since a dispute is raised and a civil suit is pending on the title to the property, the compensation amount determined should not be disbursed to the persons on whose name the consent award is passed and in case the compensation amount is disbursed, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in the event of their success before the civil Court.
6. It is further contended that the consent award is vitiated as it was passed with the consent of persons, who are totally unconcerned with the land in issue. It is further contended that the 5th respondent also claimed to have purchased the same property on 12.06.2012 i.e., after the draft declaration and, therefore, they are also not entitled to be included in the consent award and are not entitled to receive compensation. It is further contended that the vendor of the 5th respondent was not the owner of the property and, therefore, the purchase made on 12.06.2012 is not valid in law.
7. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the 5th respondent contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable in as much as the petitioners have not participated in the land acquisition proceedings nor their so-called vendor also did not participate in the land acquisition proceedings. The consent award was passed which has become final. The said consent award is not under challenge in this writ petition. The compensation determined is sought to be disbursed in accordance with the consent award passed since the name of the vendor of the 5th respondent was shown in the consent award and the 5th respondent, being the purchaser of the land, is entitled to receive compensation as already determined and the petitioners cannot object to the payment of compensation to the 5th respondent. Since none of the land acquisition notifications and the award are challenged, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on that ground. A declaration sought by the petitioners is only with reference to disbursement of compensation and when once award has become final which is not under challenge, the petitioners cannot seek a declaration against disbursement of compensation.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioners being subsequent purchasers after the initiation of land acquisition proceedings and passing of draft declaration, the conveyance made is not valid in law and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to participate in the land acquisition proceedings nor entitled to claim compensation. It is further contended that as the proceedings of the land acquisition are not under challenge, there cannot be a declaration not to disburse the compensation. In support of her contention, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in MEERA SAHNI Vs.
[1] LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS .
9. As contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, none of the land acquisition proceedings and the award passed on 07.11.2013, which was approved by the competent authority on 05.12.2013, are challenged. The compensation as determined in the land acquisition proceedings is required to be paid to persons on whom the award is passed. The petitioners were aware of the commencement of the land acquisition proceedings. This is also evident from the representation submitted by the petitioners on 10.03.2012 i.e., within 10 days after registration of Deed of Conveyance. The representation on 10.03.2012 discloses the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings. It also refers to a representation stated to have been filed by the vendor of the petitioners on 04.01.2011 objecting to non-disclosure of the name of the vendor in the land acquisition notifications. Even though the petitioners as well as the vendor were aware of the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings and that their names were not included, they did not take appropriate steps, as warranted by law, to protect their interests, assuming that they have valid claim. As averred by the petitioners, after 10.03.2012 a further notice emanated only on 04.12.2013 i.e., a day before the award was approved by the competent authority.
10. Insofar as this writ petition is concerned, since the award is not under challenge, the correctness or otherwise of the contentions of the petitioners against acquisition proceedings cannot be gone into. The disbursement of compensation has to be in accordance with the award passed on 07.11.2013 as approved on 05.12.2013. As held by the Supreme Court in MEERA SAHNI’s Case (Supra 1), the transactions made after the issuance of Section 4(1) notification and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act be deemed as void and would not be binding on the Government. The subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The vendors of the petitioners are not before this Court. Thus, the disbursement of compensation to the persons on whose name the award is passed cannot be interjected at this stage. There is no merit in the writ petition.
11. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, regarding status and ownership of the land in Survey No.311-1 to the extent of Ac. 2.91 cents, the petitioners instituted O.S.No.14 of 2014, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Hindupur. Thus, payment of compensation in favour of the 5th respondent in accordance with the award approved on 05.12.2013 shall abide the result of the suit pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Hindupur.
12. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 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: 11th June, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.7465 of 2014 Date: 11th June, 2014 KL
[1] 2008 (9) SCC 177