HANUMANTHA RAO K Vs. PRL SUB JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants in this writ appeal. The writ petition is purported to have been filed by them in public interest. They have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent-Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada to decide O.P.No.350 of 1987 and O.P.No.67 of 1988 on merits by considering the contentions and the evidence, if any, adduced by the parties by setting aside the docket order dated 22-3-1996 in the said O.Ps. Factual Matrix:

(2.) According to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the dispute relate to payment of compensation for the land situated in N.T.S. No.368/3A admeasuring an extent of Ac.1-65 cents and land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2-88 cents in N.T.S.No.368/3A situated in Moghalrajapuram of Vijayawada Urban Mandal of Krishna District. It is alleged that the compensation amount for the land was likely to be paid to the 3rd Respondent herein, though he is not the real owner of the land in qaestion. According to the petitioners, the land in question is the Government land. The petitioners are stated to have made representation to the 5th Respondent with a request to investigate into the matter and prevent the 3rd Respondent from taking away the amount lying in deposit with the 1st Respondent and as the guardian of the State property at the District level. The 5th Respondent failed to take action immediately. According to the petitioners the inaction of the 5th Respondent in the matter has resulted and facilitated the 3rd Respondent to take away the amount lying in deposit with the 1st Respondent, though he has no right over the same. The inaction of the 5th Respondent in not ordering an investigation into the whole episode is nothing but arbitrary, capricious, according to the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st Respondent-Principal Subordinate Judge in O.P.Nos.350/87 and 67/88 in which proceedings, the 1st Respondent had recorded the compromise entered into by and between the parties to the said proceedings including the 3rd Respondent. Both the O.Ps. were referred to the 1st Respondent by Land Acquisition Officer under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short 'the Act', as there were rival claimants claiming the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the said land referred to here in above. According to the petitioners, the 1st Respondent ought not to have recorded the compromise and ought to have insisted the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claim and thereafter ought to have decided the matter on merits.

(3.) The necessary facts for adjudication of the writ petition are not stated in the affidavit. The affidavit contains vague and indefinite allegations stating that none of the private parties have got any right, title or possession of the said land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and it is an open land exclusively belonging to the Government. No material whatsoever in support of the claim is brought before the Court by the petitioners.