P C SITAMMA Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue an order or orders or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records in proceedings No.B2/1919/95 dated 4-4-1995 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.

(2.) The writ affidavit filed by the petitioner herein shows that he along with the others were the absolute owners and possessors of the land ad-measuring Ac.8-04 cents in S.Nos.206/1, 206/5-A and 206/5-C situated at Stambala Garuvu, Hamlet of Nallapadu village, Guntur District and the said land was acquired by the respondents 2 to 4 under the Land Acquisition Act for providing house sites to B.Cs. E.B.Cs. and S.Ts. They had issued notice for the said purpose bearing proceedings Rc.No.2663/78-W3 dated 14-10-1985. Thereafter without the knowledge of the petitioner, an Award under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed on 20-9-1986 by granting a total compensation of Rs.1,67,450-50 ps. by fixing the market value of Rs.10,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the petitioner sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On the reference the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur passed the judgment dated 20-3-1990 in L.A., O.P. Nos.236 to 245 of 1987 by fixing the market value of the land to be acquired at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre. On filing E.P. Nos.15 to 24 of 1991, the respondents herein deposited the decretal amount in the Court and it was withdrawn by the petitioner and others.

(3.) Now the grievance is made by the petitioner herein that the first respondent herein at the direction of the District Collector, Hyderabad issued a notice to the petitioner herein dated 4-4-1995 bearing No.B2/1919/95 intending to take proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act alleging that the excess amount has been paid by the respondents herein. It was alleged by the respondents herein that the land fell in Urban Agglomeration of Guntur Town and hence the petitioner and others were not entitled to get compensation under the Land Acquisition Act but they were entitled to get compensation only under Urban Land Ceiling Act. It was further contended by the respondents herein that the petitioner had filed return as required under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act in which the petitioner had shown the excess land in the return filed by her. This particular position was concealed by the petitioner when the Award was passed by the Subordinate Judge, Guntur under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On this ground the respondents herein alleged that they are entitled to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner herein.