HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26677 of 2013 Date: 04.07.2014 Between :
Thumu Srikanth, s/o. Srinivasulu, Aged 38 years, Business, R/o.12-1-55/4, Moosapet, Balanagar Mandal, Hyderabad and another.
and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… Petitioners … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26677 of 2013 ORDER:
Notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued on 11.05.2012 for acquiring the private properties for public purpose. This acquisition also included the property bearing Door No.11-5-230 of Moosapet in Sy.No.294/2. Section 5-A enquiry was conducted on 17.05.2012. Section 5-A notice did not contain the name of Thumu Srinivasulu. A notice was issued on behalf of the petitioners to include the name of Thumu Srinivasulu or petitioners. Since there was no response, W.P.No.35121 of 2012 was instituted in this Court. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 16.11.2012, granting liberty to the petitioners to raise objections before the Land Acquisition Officer and direction was issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the said objections if such objections are filed within a period two weeks. Accordingly, the objections were filed on 14.12.2012. On 13.2.2013, award enquiry was held. Notice was issued to the petitioners showing their properties. On 30.07.2013, award was passed. This writ petition is instituted seeking mandamus against releasing the compensation to the petitioners’ father and petitioners father’s brother in equal proportion and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to include the names of the petitioners and release compensation for the affected premises.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that total 1326.84 square yards of land was acquired in the premises bearing house bearing Nos.11-5-230, 11-5-230/1 and 11-5-230/2. He submits that the property bearing House Nos.11-5-230/1 and 11-5-230/2 to an extent of 840 square yards exclusively belongs to the father of the petitioners as the same was purchased by their father on his own and the acquisition proceedings include this 840 square yards. Whereas erroneously the compensation was divided into two equal shares between the brother of the father of the petitioners and father. Learned counsel further submits that house bearing Nos.11-5-230/1 and 11-5- 230/2 was gifted to the petitioners by their father and therefore the petitioners are alone entitled to receive compensation against 840 square yards acquired by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the implead party respondent who is the brother of the father of the petitioners, submits that from out of total extent of 1788 square yards, 1326.84 square yards is now acquired. In the year 2012 petitioners have generated gift deed stated to have been executed by their father in favour of his sons, wherein two separate house numbers are shown i.e., H.Nos.11-5-230/1 and 11-5-230/2. This they claim as their exclusive property. Whereas the total extent of land i.e., 1788 square yards belongs to both brothers jointly and are entitled to equal shares. Learned counsel also raised objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that award which was passed on 30.07.2013 has become final. The said award is not under challenge and even relief is also vague. The relief as sought cannot be granted since the award has become final. The compensation is to be paid in accordance with the declaration given in the award and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal.
4. As seen from para 5 of the award passed, it deals with the property of Thumu Srinivasulu and 5th respondent. The Land Acquisition Officer has held that Thumu Srinivasulu (father of the petitioners) and Thumu Muralidhar (5th respondent) are entitled to equal share out of the compensation of Rs.4,35,16,921/- determined for the extent of land acquired. He has apportioned the compensation payable equally to both brothers. This award has become final as the same is not under challenge. No objections were raised on the amount of compensation determined or apportionment of compensation, in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.
5. No document is produced to show that the father of the petitioners purchased the said property on his own without any investment made by the brother of the father of the petitioners and, therefore, it becomes self acquired property of their father and consequent to gifting the said property, petitioners alone are entitled to receive compensation. Earlier matter was adjourned for the purpose of production of alleged sale deed of 1976, by which petitioner’s father claimed to have purchased the said property. No such sale deed is produced even today.
6. The petitioners have not independently established that they are the absolute owners of 840 square yards bearing house Nos.11-5- 230/1 and 11-5-230/2 to claim that they are exclusively entitled to compensation to that extent. In the absence of any such proof, it cannot be said that apportionment of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer is erroneous warranting interference by this Court.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that concerning an internal dispute between the family members, O.S.No.156 of 2013 on the file of V Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy is pending. This suit is filed by the 5th respondent claiming partition of the entire property. If the petitioners have valid claim regarding the land to an extent of 840 square yards bearing house Nos.11-5-230/1 and 11-5-230/2, they shall assert the said right and as and when they succeed in the said Court, they can claim the appropriate relief as warranted by law regarding payment of balance amount of compensation or any other equitable reliefs.
8. Subject to above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Any observations made herein is only for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and parties are at liberty to urge all contentions as available in law in O.S.No.156 of 2013 on the fie of V Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy. The Land Acquisition Officer shall forthwith release the amount of compensation determined to the petitioners father and 5th respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 04.07.2014 Kkm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26677 of 2013 Date: 04.07.2014 kkm