RAJSEKHAR BABU Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions seek for issuance of mandamus directing the Ist respondent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of the rights of the petitioners.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of these two writ petitions are: By is issuance of a notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the lands in survey Nos. 20, 21 and 25 of Daira village (within the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Limits) along with some other lands were acquired by the 1st respondent and that ultimately culminated in passing the award No. 51/685/77 dated 23-5-1986. The petitioner in W.P. 17679/87 claims that he was the owner and possessor of S. No. 25 in an extent of Ac. 2-04 guntas, while the petitioner in the other writ petition makes a claim for the other two survey numbers in an extent of Ac. 5-26 guntas put together. Both the petitioners trace their title to a PHARMAN issued by the Nizain-VII in 1336 fasli in the name of one Zainulabaddin. Zainlabaddin was the sister's husband of the petitioner in W.P. 5943/88. Since the sister died, Zainulabaddin married another by name Ayasha Begum. Ayasha Begum had a daughter through her first husband before marrying Zainulabaddin, Respondent No. 3 is the said daughter and her son is the 2nd respondent. In fasli 1346 itself, Zainuiabaddin made an application on 21st Azur, for transferring the land covered by the Pharman in the name of the petitioner in W.P. 5943/88 and that was accordingly transferred. Thus, the petitioner in W.P. 5943/88 got the landsin S. Nos. 20,21 and 25. He in his turn said Ac. 2-04 guntas in S. No. 25 to one Peddayya, from whom the petitioner in W.P. 17679/87 again purchased the same under a sale-deed. Thus, both the petitioners claim title to and possession of the lands covered by the award in question. It is to be noticed that it was in October, '74 the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was issued and after enquiry in September, '86 the award was passed. The case of the petitioner in W.P. 17679 of '87 is that in the year 1982 itself he had put in a petition claiming his rights before the 1st respondent. That petition was sent under certificate of posting. The other petitioner also avers that he in person had filed his petition direct in the office of the 1st respondent. Besides these two petitioners, the lands were also claimed by one Raja Krishna Devaraya Trust and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The word enquiry was held in the year 1986 and later the award was passed on 23-5-86. The grievance of the petitioners is that the award inquiry was conducted without giving any notice under Ss. 9(3) and 10 of the Act to them. Even after passing of the award no notice as contemplated under S. 12(2) of the Act given to the petitioners. The award, according to the petitioners, was passed in terms of the compromise entered into between the said Raja Krishna Devaraya Trust and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. When the petitioner in W.P. 5943/88 came to know of the passing of the award, he filed an application before the 1st respondent on 25-11-87 requesting him to make a reference to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to have his rights adjudicated by the Court. To this, the 1st respondent issued a reply in the form of a memo dated 26-12-'87 rejecting the request.

(3.) In so far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 17679/87 is concerned he made an application on 25-2-'87 to the 1st respondent and that was responded to on 27-2-'87 informing him that the award was already passed on 22-2-86. There was another application put in by him on 18-3-'87 to which also the reply dated 2-4-'87 discloses that since the award was passed no steps could be taken. The applications dated 25-2-'87 and 18-3-87 were made seeking payment of compensation, inasmuch as those two applications were of no avail and informed him of the passing of the award, he filed another application on 28-9-'87 to make a reference under S. 18 of the Act. To this, the 1st respondent informed through communication dated 7-10-'87 that a reference was already made at the instance of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and that was pending in the Civil Court, and that no further action could be taken in the matter. Since both the petitioners had a negative reply in the matter of their effort to have a reference under S. 18 of the Act made for having their rights adjudicated, they moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.