YADAM LASKSHMI Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the third party in L.A.O.P. No. 41 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, which is a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner filed I.A.No.19 of 2016 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., to implead her as the sixth claimant in the reference. Vide Orders, dated 25-04-2016, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta dismissed the application. Hence, the revision.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that she purchased Ac.0-20 cents of land in Sy.No.221/2 from Kirti Chandra Dev under registered sale deed No.595/1984, dated 26.03.1984. The sale deed was executed by one Balla Gavarayya who was a registered GPA holder of the said Kirti Chandra Dev under registered G.P.A.No.1905/1984, dated 20.02.1984. The second and third respondents herein, who are claimants 1 and 2 in the Land Acquisition O.P., are the daughters of the said Kirti Chandra Dev. The Land Acquisition Officer has acquired an extent of Ac.2-01 cents in Sy.No.221/2 for construction of Mini Tourism Park at Rattakanna village of Ichapuram Municipality limits. The acquired lands include an extent of Ac.1-671/2 cents which is said to have been acquired from the third respondent herein/the second claimant in the Land Acquisition O.P. Even though Ac.0-20 cents of land belonging to the third party petitioner was part of the acquired lands, the Land Acquisition Officer failed to recognize her and therefore no compensation was paid to her and she is not made a party to the reference under Sec. 18 of the Act. When she approached the authorities, they informed her that since the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.0-20 cents was not part of the acquired lands, she is not entitled to any compensation. After exhausting all her remedies with the authorities, the third party-petitioner filed W.P.No.24199 of 2006 for Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Land Acquisition Officer not referring the matter of acquiring the land of the petitioner. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, this Court called for a report from the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, to inform as to whether there is any reference pending under Sec. 18 of the Act in respect of Sy.No.221/2 of Rattakanna village, Ichapuram Mandal. The Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, informed the High Court that L.A.O.P.No.41 of 2006 is pending on its file with regard to the acquisition of the land in respect of Sy.No.221/2. After taking into consideration the report of the learned Senior Civil Judge, this Court has disposed of the writ petitioner on 09.03.2015 directing as under:-

(3.) A perusal of the impugned Order shows that the learned Senior Civil Judge has grossly erred in dismissing the request of the third party-petitioner by relying upon other decisions of the High Court wherein it is stated that in a reference pending under Sec. 18 of the Act, a third party cannot get herself impleaded. When there is a Judgment in between the parties from the High Court giving certain directions that has to be strictly complied with but the decision of the Court in a Writ Petition in between the parties cannot be circumvented by relying upon the decision of the High Court rendered in other cases. When this Court in W.P.No.24199 of 2006 specifically directed the petitioner to approach the Court and get herself impleaded and ventilate her grievance, that order needs to be complied with instead of refusing the request on the ground that in some other decisions, the Court whether it be Supreme Court or High Court held that in a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act, a third party cannot get herself impleaded. That is more particularly so when the direction given by the High Court in a writ petition in between the parties has become final and so far as the parties are concerned, that is the final word which has to be implemented. Therefore, learned Senior Civil Judge has clearly erred in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to be impleaded as the sixth claimant in Land Acquisition O.P.