J.NARAYANA Vs. JAINAPALLI PEDDA KISTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are between the same parties. Apart from that, similar questions of law and fact are involved. Hence, they are disposed of through this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in CCCA No.86 of 1993.

(2.) VERY large extent of land in Gudimalkapur and other revenue villages was acquired in the year 1978 for the purpose of laying the 'inner ring road' in the city of Hyderabad. A Notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published on 18.05.1978. The land in Sy. Nos. 216, 217 and 221 of Gudimalkapur revenue village, admeasuring about Ac.1 -05 guntas was also notified. Similarly, through another Notification, the land in Sy. Nos. 207, 208, 209, 214 and 215/1, admeasuring Ac.13.14 guntas was notified for the same purpose. The appellants, on one hand, and the Respondents (other than the Land Acquisition Officer), on the other hand, laid claims for payment of compensation in respect of both the pieces of land. While in the first case, the award was passed on 08.03.1983, in the second case, the award was passed on 24.03.1986. In view of the rival claims made before him by the appellants, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matters to Civil Court under Sec.30 of the Act. Accordingly, they were taken up as O.P.No.151 of 1983 and O.P.No.267 of 1986 respectively by the Court of the I -Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Through a common order dt. 25.10.1993, the trial Court held that the respondents are entitled to be paid the compensation and not the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, CCCA Nos.86 & 87 of 1993 are filed against the order and decrees in O.P.Nos.151 of 1983 and 267 of 1986 respectively.

(3.) SRI G. Anjapppa, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 7 and Sri L. Sudheer, learned counsel for Respondent No.10, on the other hand, submit that except making a spacious and vague plea that they are the children of a protected tenant and that they have been conferred rights of ownership in respect of the land in question, the appellants did not place any material in support of their case. They contend that undisputedly the Respondents were in possession and enjoyment of the property, for a period, exceeding two decades before it was acquired by the Government under the Act. They further submit that there did not exist any P.T. Certificate in the name of the appellants or their father and just by drawing inference that Ex.A -8 is in favour of the father of the appellants, several claims were being made from time to time. They submit that the appellants were not issued the certificate under sec. 38 - E(2) at any point of time and as long as such certificate is not issued, no person can claim rights of ownership under the Tenancy Act. Learned counsel submit that the trial Court had taken correct view of the matter and the same does not warrant any interference in the present appeals.