IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17806 of 2014 Between:
Mohan Das, S/o. Late Ramcharan Das, Hindu, Aged 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 22-1-111, Kali Khabar, Inside Imliban Bus Stand, Chadarghat, Hyderabad & 3 others .. Petitioners AND The Spl. Grade Deputy Collector-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, LAHMR, GHMC, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17806 of 2014 ORDER:
The claim of the petitioners is that they are the owners of land to an extent of 600 square yards in Premises bearing Nos.4-8-50 and 4-8-60/A/10, Plot No.16 of Survey No.16 of Thotaguda Village of Rangamahal Road, Putlibowli, Hyderabad. The land acquisition proceedings are initiated under the repealed Act to acquire the land. The names of the petitioners were not shown in the land acquisition proceedings and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to contest the land acquisition proceedings and to participate in the award enquiry. An award was passed on 31.10.2013. As seen from the award, as there were more than one claims against the same property, the Land Acquisition Officer credited the amount in the competent civil Court. Having come to know that an award is passed acquiring the land of the petitioners, as the petitioners were not put on notice, the petitioners have directly filed O.P.(SR) Nos.4951 and 4952 of 2014 which were returned as not maintainable. Hence, this writ petition is instituted challenging the award, dated 31.10.2013.
2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are willing to go before the civil Court and implead as respondents in O.P.No.448 of 2014, on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; O.P.No.449 of 2014, on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; and O.P.No.450 of 2014, on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3. As per Section 30 of the repealed Act, if there is a dispute on entitlement for compensation or there are more than one claims to receive compensation, it is competent for the Collector to refer the dispute to the civil Court. Since there were more than one claims to the title of the property, the Collector referred the dispute to the civil Court and which are now pending before the XI Additional Chief Judge, X Additional Chief Judge and IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. If the petitioners have a valid claim to the property, it is also open to the petitioners to file applications in the above O.Ps and establish their title to claim compensation.
4. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the XI Additional Chief Judge in O.P.No.448 of 2014, X Additional Chief Judge in O.P.No.449 of 2014 and XI Additional Chief Judge in O.P.No.450 of 2014, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and file an appropriate application supported by the relevant documents to show the entitlement to claim full compensation or appropriate share in the compensation already determined. 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: 8th July, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17806 of 2014 Date: 8th July, 2014 KL