MEENA PARIKH & ANOTHER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners claim to be the owners of premises bearing Door Nos. 5-1- 459/3, 3A and 4 of Jambagh, Hyderabad. Notification, dated 23.10.2008, was issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") by respondent No.1 proposing to acquire the said property. Declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was issued on 08.07.2009. Writ Petition No.16108 of 2009 was filed questioning the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners obtained limited stay and obviously after expiry of the interim order, award was passed in respect of which a notice was issued under Sec. 12(2) of the Act on 16.04.2011. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that even though they have appeared before respondent No.2 with documents of title, they were informed that since no one claimed title, the issue was referred to civil Court under Sec. 30 of the Act and compensation was deposited under Sec. 31(2) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by this action of respondent No.2, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) At the hearing, Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that as they had no notice of award enquiry, the petitioners could not make their claim before respondent No.2 before the award was made and that after receiving the notice issued under Sec. 12(2) of the Act, they have appeared before respondent No.2 and made a claim by filing their documents of title and that in spite of the same, respondent No.2 has not paid compensation and instead he informed the petitioners that he has already referred the dispute to the civil Court under Sec. 30 of the Act.