PAIRALA RAYAMALLU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 6 writ petitioners sought the relief, more particularly, of mandamus declaring the order of 3rd respondent-RDO, Mancherial (among the 4 respondents including the State represented by Principal Secretary (R & LA), District Collector, Adilabad and unofficial 4th respondent R. Ramesh Babu) vide proceedings No. A/924/2010 dated 26.02.2016 to pay compensation to the 4th respondent in respect of S.No.180 of Ac. 615 guntas as illegal and to set aside the same and to direct the RDO (R.3) to consider the claim of the petitioners, who are the pattedars of the said land of S. No. 180 to an extent of Ac. 6.38 situated at Singapur Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District.

(2.) The averments in the supporting affidavit of the 4th petitioner are that they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in question that originally belongs to their ancestors Pairala Rajaiah and his 2 brothers Papaiah and Pochaiah and the kasrapahani of 1954-55 also reflects their names as inamdars and the petitioners since ancestors are in continuous possession and enjoyment and the Government issued Sec. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 publication in the District Gazette dated 05.12012 and later after Sec. 6 declaration passed award on 29.12014 and the petitioners are the original owners with possession and enjoyment, the 4th respondent Ramesh Babu is shown wrongly as pattadar in the revenue records and they are trying to release the compensation in collusion with R.4 and they submitted their objection on 04.02015 not to release the compensation to respondent No.4 since the petitioners are the original owners and thereby to refer the dispute under Section 76 of the Act No.30/2013, it was not referred and the 3rd respondent-RDO asked them to appear for enquiry on 26.03.2015 and they with documentary evidence attended and submitted to support their claim of ownership and entitlement of compensation, it was adjourned to some other date saying the RDO was on leave and they received another notice for appearance on 18.04.2015 and they attended, however the matter was not called and they were expecting further notice and went to the Office of RDO on 24.04.2015, however, it was informed that on 18.04.2015 in their absence the objections of them disposed of and even asked for a copy of the objections rejection order it was not furnished and they earlier filed W.P.No.13201 of 2015, whereby this Court by order dated 04.11.2015 disposed of directing the RDO to fix early date for hearing after notice to the petitioners and respondent No.4 and pass appropriate orders by giving liberty to the petitioners to submit the objections and pursuant to the notice dated 13.01.2016 they appeared on 23.01.2016 before respondent No.3 and on that day no hearing taken place and they were asked to appear on next day and the impugned order on 26.02016 passed by R.3 curiously without hearing and enquiry, hence to set aside the proceedings dated 26.02016 by ordering payment of compensation to the petitioners and not to release the compensation to 4th respondent.

(3.) Pending the Writ Petition, respondent No.4 filed implead petition vide W.P. M.P. No. 29363 of 2017 for impleading Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) as 5th respondent saying the land acquired of Ac. 817.15 guntas of Singapur Village including the land in question referred supra were on the requisition of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited being a necessary party. Accordingly, the implead petition is ordered and Singareni Collieries Company is impleaded as 5th respondent and represented by J. Srinivas Rao learned standing counsel.