SYED MOHAMMED YAHYA QUADRL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NALGONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was heard once and an order was passed on 1-4-1994 setting aside the findings given on issues 1 and 2 by the trial Court and the matter was remitted back for giving fresh findings on issues 1 and 2 by giving sufficient opportunity to both the sides to lead additional evidence on the said issues and the appeal was kept pending till then. Now that the learned trial Judge has submitted his findings on the said issues again, as directed by this Court, in his report dated 22-11-1995, the matter is being heard again to dispose of the appeal on merits.

(2.) This is a plaintiff's appeal. His suit O.S.No. 79 of 1978 was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge, Nalgonda by his judgment and decree dated 24-3-1982. The respondents in the appeal were the defendants in the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff filed the suit for return of the plaint schedule property by delivering vacant possession of the same by defendant No. 1, who is the District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. The suit property is described in the plaint schedule as an agricultural land bearing S.No. 33 in Nalgonda Revenue Village. The plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. It was acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of a maternity ward through Sec. 4 notification dated 26-3-1953 and Section 6 notification dated 5-11-1953 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Compensation was awarded to the plaintiff by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of 0-50 paise per square yard on 14-9-1957. On a reference under Section 14 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, the District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2-00 per square yard, in O.P.No: 41 of 1958. The defendants challenged the title of the plaintiff. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff is the owner of the land and entitled to the enhanced compensation. Accordingly, the compensation was enhanced. The amount of compensation so awarded has been kept in deposit in the Court and the plaintiff has not drawn it so far. In the meanwhile, it appears that the Director of Medical and Health Services addressed a letter No. 299569 dated 16-6-1970 to the Secretary to the Government that the acquired land was no longer required for the construction of maternity ward, since it was already constructed in the premises of Head Quarters' Hospital, Nalgonda. Therefore, he suggested that the acquired land may be returned to the owner. The plaintiff made a petition to the Government on 22-8-1974 expressing his willingness to take back the land without any claim for damages or compensation. The Government in its Memo No.449, dated 13-10-1974 directed the District Collector, Nalgonda to submit withdrawal proposals in respect of the land acquired. It appears that the Collector proposed to the Government for retaining the Government land for use for any suitable purpose. The plaintiff submitted a petition to the Government on 5-2-1975 stating that the acquired land was liable to be redelivered to him under Section 54-A of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act since it was no longer required for the purpose for which it was acquired. On 22-2-1975, the Government replied to the plaintiff that they have already issued a memorandum No. 443, dated 11-2-1975 rejecting the requisition of the plaintiff and that they saw no reason to reconsider the said order. Therefore, the plaintiff filed Writ Petition No. 573 of 1975 before this Court seeking a direction to the Government and the District Collector to act as per the provisions of Section 54-A of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act. The Government opposed the petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 15-4-1977 on the ground that the matter involves the question as to whether the land was agricultural land or a Gaothan land and that being a question of fact it could not be decided in the writ proceedings. Therefore, with such observations the writ petition was disposed of leaving open the choice to the plaintiff to institute necessary proceedings before an appropriate Court for establishing the nature of the land acquired. The question whether the land has to be redelivered to the plaintiff under Section 54-A of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act was also kept open.