LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER GUNTUR Vs. PATIBANDLA MALLIKAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur dated 5/03/1956, and made in O. P. No. 98/52 on the file of the said Court.

(2.) The O. P. in question was filed directly in the Subordinate Judges Court, Guntur by the 1st respondent herein under Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) and under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. The facts out of which this revision has arisen may be briefly stated: An extent of one acre of land in Section No. 169 in the village of Koritepadu was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer (Petitioner herein) who made an award on 24-5-1952 in favour of respondents 2 and 3.The first respondent herein claiming to be interested in the land, had apparently applied under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Land Acquisition Officer requesting him to make a reference to the Civil Court having jurisdiction. The Acquisition Officer having apparently not been satisfied that the request of the first respondent had any merits in it or that he was in any manner interested in the property acquired by him, did not make a reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.Accordingly, the first respondent filed the present O. P. No. 98/52 directly in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, praying to set aside the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, to declare the first respondent as the person entitled to receive the compensation amount in respect of the property acquired, and to direct the payment of the compensation amount to the first respondent

(3.) Objection was taken to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the Land Acquisition Act did not contemplate the filing of a petition of the kind now sought to be filed by the first respondent and that the petition was not therefore maintainable in law, that the first respondent was neither a pattadar nor an enjoyer of the lands in question and that she had no interest whatsoever in the lands acquired, that the respondents 2 and 3 were the title holders and persons in enjoyment of the property and that the compensation was rightly paid to them and that therefore the Award is not liable to be set aside or interfered with in any manner.