MORAVINENI PRABHAKAR RAO Vs. MORAVINENI SEETHA RATHNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.63 of 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, against respondents 3 to 7 and the petitioners herein (defendants 3 to 5), for partition. THEy claimed share in the suit schedule property. THE petitioners filed written-statement in the suit claiming exclusive rights over the suit schedule property, on the strength of a Will, dated 04-06-1991, said to have been executed by late Moravineni Kotaiah. THEy have also filed I.A.No.11 of 2010, under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint. According to them, the suit schedule properties were submerged in an irrigation project, and that the lands were notified for acquisition. THEy pleaded that once the Government issued notifications, in exercise of powers under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ?the Act?), it is not open to anyone to institute a suit, in respect of the lands notified for acquisition. THE respondents 1 and 2 opposed the application. THE trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 22-04-2010. Hence this revision.

(2.) HEARD Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, for respondents 3 and 4, Sri K. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, and Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7.

(3.) IN the instant case, the claim made by the petitioners cannot be rejected in limini, and the proper forum for adjudication thereof, is a Court of law. The rights of the respondents 1 and 2, on the one hand, and those of the petitioners, and other private parties, on the other hand, can effectively be adjudicated in a reference under Section 30 of the Act, as and when the compensation is deposited. The present suit does not appear to be the proper avenue, though the plaint presented by them cannot be rejected under any grounds mentioned in Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed, a) directing that the order under revision be set aside; and b) I.A.No.11 of 2010 is allowed, directing that a decree be passed requiring the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e. the 2nd defendant in the suit, to refer the dispute, as to the claim of compensation by the petitioners herein, vis--vis the suit schedule property; to a Civil Court, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, as and when the award is passed. There shall be no order as to costs.