PREMA Vs. L A O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitions and the Writ Petitions arise between the same parties and hence they are being disposed of under a common order.

(2.) The cases have chequered career. One Dr. K.S. Raghava Chari was the owner of various extents of lands situated in Manchalakatta village in Mahabubnagar Dist. He had two wives. The 1st wife and son predeceased him leaving one daughter Pankajam (1st petitioner in W.Ps.) and Soundaryavalli, daughter-in-law (4th respondent). The 2nd wife Smt. Tangamma was alive as on the date of the death of Dr. K.S. Raghavachari. She is having two daughters Prema and Vasantha (petitioners No.2 and 3 in W.Ps.) and one son Parthasarathy (Respondent No.3). The vast extents of lands owned by Dr. K.S. Raghavachari were acquired for construction of Srisailam Hydro Electric Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Awards in Award No.29/75, dated 30-8-1975, Award No.32/75, dated 15-11-1975, Award No.33/ 75, dated 15-11-1975 and Award No.125 of 1978, dated 10-11-1978. However, there was a dispute with regard to certain lands on the ground that they are Inam lands and therefore reference was made to Sub-Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District. The learned Sub-Judge in O.P. Nos.51/76, 63/76, 67/ 76, and 311/1978 held that late Dr. Raghavachari was alone entitled for compensation amount and thus he received the amounts in respect of the lands. It is also submitted that the said Raghavachari executed a Will on 5-5-1982 bequeathing the property on various legal heirs. While so,W.P.No.11116/1986 was filed seekingdirection to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference underSection 18of the Act for enhancementofthecompensation. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 25-8-1986 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the matter was not taken by the Land Acquisition Officer for a considerable time. In the meanwhile the Government having realised that there were number of disputes with regard to land acquisition proceedings in respect of Srisailam project and that number of persons were not paid the compensation and with a view to settle all these long pending claims directed all the references to the Lok Adalat by notification in G.O.Ms. No.234 Irrigation and (GAD) Project Wing. TGP.III Dept., dated 15-10-1993 stipulating certain guidelines. On coming to know of such a notification, the third petitioner addressed a registered letter on 2-1-1994 to the Land Acquisition Officer requesting for apportionment of the compensation among all the legal heirs. However, no action was taken. Again, a Lawyer's notice was issued on 22-8-1994 stating that there are six legal heirs including the petitioners. The Land Acquisition Officer without conducting any enquiry with regard to the settlement of the compensation referred the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25-10-1994 only mentioning the names of the Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 as legal representatives of Dr. K.S. Raghavachari. It is also averred that without notice to the persons interested and without verifying the records registered the references as O.P. Nos.651/94, 848/1994, 690/1994 and 692/1994 on 6-2-1995 and passed the decrees on the same day in terms of the directions given by the Government. The petitioners submit that there was violation of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No.234 and decree was obtained by Respondents Nos.2 to 4 by playing fraud in collusion with the authorities. However when the petitioners came to know that cheques and bonds were being handed over to the Respondents Nos.2 to 4, they filed two sets of LAs in each O.P., one I.A. to bring the petitioners as legal representatives of late Dr. K.S. Raghavachari and the other LA. to withhold the issue of cheques and bonds. The Respondents Nos.2 to 4 filed counter admitting the relationship, but disputing the entitlement on the ground that they are entitled for the amounts by virtue of a Will executed by Dr. K.S. Raghavachari. The learned Sub-Judge dismissed the applications on 28-4-1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the Civil Revision Petitions were filed. While ordering notice before admission in Civil Revision Petitions on 19-6-1995, a status-quo was granted by this Court. Thus, four Civil Revision Petitions i.e., C.R.P. Nos.1867/1995, 1868/1995, 1869/1995 and 1870/1995 were filed against the orders in two sets of I.As. Apart from the C.R.Ps. the petitioners also filed four Writ Petitions with the similar contentions seeking Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the reference made under Section 18 of the Act and the decrees passed by the Lok Adalat in favour of Respondents No.2 to 4 as wholly illegal and mala fide.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsels for Petitioners, Respondents and also the learned Government Pleader.