BEERABOINA ANJANEYULU Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land situated in Syi.Nos.15/1, 33/1, 51/2A, 55/2 and 57/6 admeasuring Ac.3.40 cents, Ac.15.80 cents, Ac.3.67 cents, Ac.2.48 cents and Ac.0.85 cents respectively of Mukunuru Village, Chintur Mandal, Khammam District was acquired for a public purpose vide Notification dated 24.3.2008 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). Pursuant thereto, award was passed on 29.11.2008 by the 1st respondent - Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) - determining compensation and a cheque dated 26.6.2009 was issued for a sum of Rs.11,01,440/- in the name of the 3rd respondent. At that stage, the petitioner made a representation dated 1.7.2009 before the 1st respondent requesting to stop payment to the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner's father and the 3rd respondent were joint owners of the land in question. It was also stated that as the name of the 3rd respondent alone was shown in the revenue records, the 3rd respondent had initially agreed to pay half share of the compensation to the petitioner but after receiving the cheque, he refused to pay the half share to which the petitioner was legitimately entitled to. Basing on the said representation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 1.7.2009 directed the 2nd respondent Bank to stop payment of cheque dated 26.6.2009. However, by subsequent order dated 10.8.2009 the 1st respondent directed to release the amount covered by the said cheque. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in releasing the compensation to the 3rd respondent without referring the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also sought a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court after depositing the entire compensation amount in the appropriate Civil Court. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that after receiving the representation of the petitioner dated 1.7.2009, though an enquiry was made into the petitioner's claim, he failed to establish any sufficient cause to stop payment of compensation amount. Hence the 2nd respondent Bank was directed to release the amount by order dated 10.8.2009. It is further stated that except the representation dated 1.7.2009 the petitioner did not file any documentary evidence in support of his claim and failed to establish any just and sufficient cause to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The 3rd respondent in his counter-affidavit while claiming exclusive title and possession in respect of the land in question, further contended that once the award was passed, the question of referring the matter to the Civil Court does not arise; and having failed to participate in the award enquiry, it was not open to the petitioner to seek reference to the Civil Court by making a representation. It is also stated that O.S.No.23 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Special Assistant Agent (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam for injunction was dismissed as withdrawn.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Admittedly the 3rd respondent's name alone is shown in the Section 4 (1) notification as owner of the land in question and the award dated 29.11.2008 was passed after notice to him. The petitioner himself states that his name was not shown in the revenue records and admittedly he did not participate in the award enquiry.