GOVIND VENKATA REDDY Vs. K KRIAHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of Amareswari J, allowing the writ petition with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to Civil Court in the matter of apportionment of the compensation payable for the land concerned herein. The Writ Appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition.

(2.) Survey No.886 of Bekkam Village was sought to be acquired under the provisions of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, 1894. The notification mentioned only the name of the appellant as the person interested in the land. While the proceedings were pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, the 1st respondent in the Writ Appeal (who will be referred to hereinafter as the "writ petitioner" filed an application claiming exclusive) title to the land acquired, and denying that the appellant has any rights claim, or interest therein. According to him. the father of the appellant was a tenant, after whose death the appellant initiated proceedings under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, for the issuance of a certificete validating an alleged sale in respect of the said land, but which proceedings were dismissed by the Tahsildar. He submitted further that the appellant was only in permissive possession of the land, and not entitled to any part of the compensation. He further submitted:

(3.) The Land Aquisition Officer went into the rival claims put forward by the appellant and the writ-petitioner and on a consideration of the material produced by them, upheld the appellant's claim and rejected the contentions of the writ-petitioner, while passing the award. The land Acquisition Officer held in his award that the Record of Rights and the continuous possession of the appellant for more than 25 years prove his undisputed ownership. He emphasised the fact that, his name is recorded as Pattadar in the Khasrapahani (Record of Rights) and the subsequent Pahanies. He also held that the continuous possession of the appellant for over 25 years would extinguish the title of the writ-petitioner, even if he had any, sometime ago. Having upheld the appellants' exclusive claims, the Land Aquisition Officer further observed:.