GOVINDU VENKATA REDDY Vs. K KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of Amareswari, J. allowing 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 Bekkar village was sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 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 right, 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 Agriculture Lands Act, for the issuance of a certificate validating an alleged scale 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 Acquisition 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 appellants claim and rejected the contention 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 5 years prove this undisputed ownership. He emphasised the fact that, his name is recorded as Pattadar in then Khasra Pahani (Record of Rights) and the subsequent Pahanies. He also held that the continuous possession of the appellant for of 25 years would extinguish the title of the writ petitioner, even if he had any, sometime ago. Having upheld the appellants exclusive claim, the Land Acquisition officer further observed:-