IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.3341 of 2014 Between:
Pathapati Krishnaiah, S/o. Ankaiah, Aged 62 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Mukthinuthalapadu Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District.
.. Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.3341 of 2014 ORDER:
Land to an extent of Ac. 0.72 cents in Survey No.77, situated at Mukthinuthalapadu Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District, was acquired for the purpose of construction of By-Pass Road by the National Highway Authority of India. On 20.04.2012, Award No.40 of 2011 was passed. In the said award, the name of Atmakuri Chenchamma was recorded as owner of the above land. The petitioner objected to the description of Atmakuri Chenchamma as owner of the land. Considering the said objection, supplementary award bearing No.40-A of 2011 was passed on 23.04.2011 deleting the name of Atmakuri Chenchamma and including the name of the petitioner. The petitioner instituted this writ petition contending that in spite of an award passed in her favour, the compensation determined is not paid.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Atmakuri Chenchamma though instituted O.S.No.126 of 2012, on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Ongole, the said suit pertain to partition of the properties mentioned in the schedule and no relief was sought against the property in the above survey number and no injunction order was granted and, therefore, not releasing the compensation determined was illegal. By an order, dated 20.03.2014, this Court noticed the said contention (O.S. number was wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.136 of 2012) and an interim order was passed directing the release of compensation amount determined in the above land. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the property in Survey No.77 was not part and parcel of the suit schedule properties.
3. Aggrieved by the same, Atmakuri Chenchamma filed petition to implead as respondent and to contest the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition was ordered and Atmakuri Chenchamma is impleaded as the 5th respondent. Learned counsel representing 5th respondent submits that in I.A.No.443 of 2013 in O.S.No.126 of 2013, interim injunction was sought against release of compensation amount determined against land to an extent of Ac. 0.72 cents in Survey No.77 against respondents 5 and 6. (The Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer was impleaded as the 5th respondent and the District Collector, Prakasam District, as the 6th respondent.) The learned Judge granted injunction by an order dated 24.07.2013. The learned Judge directed not to issue cheques in favour of respondents 1 and 2. (The petitioner herein is the second respondent in the said I.A.). Thus, an order of injunction was passed by the civil Court and the petitioner is contesting the suit as well as the injunction order passed by the learned Judge.
4. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent further contends that if the compensation is paid as directed by this Court, it would adversely effect the interests of the 5th respondent. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent also submitted that in fact, the very same property was sold by the petitioner long ago. Therefore, the question of paying compensation to the petitioner does not arise.
5. All these matters require consideration by the competent Court. The fact of grant of injunction order by competent Court was not brought to the notice of this Court when interim order was granted. In view of pending dispute on ownership of land and injunction order passed by trial Court, at this stage, question of payment of compensation to the petitioner does not arise as the trial Court has to decide the rival claims in the suit pending before the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Ongole. It is open to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent to avail the remedies before civil Court and to contest the matter pending before the trial Court.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on merits. 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: 2nd July, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.3341 of 2014 Date: 2nd July, 2014 KL