CHILUVURU NAGAVASAVAIAH Vs. SRI JAGADGURU VISWESWARA SIVACHARYA MAHASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been referred to a Bench of two Judges by one of us (Ramachandra Raju, J.), as an earlier C. R. P. (C. R. P. No. 179 of 1968) relating to the same matter was heard by a Bench.

(2.) The relevant facts rise to the filing of this revision may be stated The Government of Andhra Pradesh, at the instance of the Southern Railway, initiated land acquisition proceedings to acquire a total extent of Ac. 4-25 cents of land in Vijayawada town and possession was taken over of the said extent on 21-11-1963. The first claimant, who is the petitioner before us, laid this claim before the special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, for compensation and the eighth claimant too, who is the respondent herein, laid his claim for compensation. It would appear that the Land Acquisition Officer did not give the 8th claimant any notice of the enquiry and proceeded to make an award. In that award, he upheld the claim of the 1st claimant as the person entitled to receive the compensation. That award was passed on 22-2-65. Prior to the land acquisition proceedings, the revision petitioner had filed a suit, O.S. No. 452 of 1957 in the court of the District Munsif, Vijayawada, against the 8th claimant and others for declaration proceedings. That suit was dismissed by the trial court on 18-9-1962 upholding the title of the respondent herein. An appeal was preferred against the Judgment and decree of the trial court, which was pending by the date of the award, but was dismissed subsequently on 7-7-1965.

(3.) The case of the respondent, therefore, is that he is the owner of the lands entitled to receive the compensation and that award of the land acquisition officer upholding the claim of the petitioner for compensation in the face of the decision of the civil court determining the rights of the parties interse cannot be enforced. It is his case that admittedly no notice was given to him of the enquiry held by the tahsildar and as soon as he learnt about the award, he made an application for a copy of the award and obtained the same on 11-3-65 and then moved for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court for deciding the question as to whether the petitioner or the respondent is entitled to receive the compensation amount. Accordingly, a reference was made to the Subordinate Judge but he refused to entertain the reference and returned the reference to the Referring Officer, which fact was intimated to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition I. A. No. 476 of 1966, in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, for recall of the reference alleging that the compensation amount was paid to a person not entitled to it. The court, after notice to the petitioner and hearing both sides, ordered recall of the reference on the ground that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted by reason of the payment of the amount to the first claimant, as the question as to who is entitled to the payment has to be decided by it. Since that order was not challenged in any appeal or revision, the reference was taken on file and numbered as O. P. No. 110 of 1966 and notice were issued to the concerned parties.