NUNNA VENKATRAMANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac. 1. 20 guntas in Sy. No. 300/e and Ac. 4. 24 guntas in Sy. No. 300/a of Dornakal Village and Mandal, Warangal District having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 29. 3. 1997. It is claimed that they were also issued pattadar pass books on 18. 6. 2007 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dornakal. While so, on 9. 7. 2008 when there was an attempt to dispossess them by the officials of the respondents, they came to know that Ac. 1-19 1/2 guntas out of their land situated in Sy. No. 300/a was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for the purpose of construction of a Summer Storage Tank. On enquiry, it was found that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in local dailies dated 21. 6. 2007 and the award was also passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 17. 6. 2008 fixing the compensation. However, since the names of the petitioners were not reflected either as owners or possessors in the notification, there was no notice to them at any point of time. Even the award enquiry was concluded behind their back.

(2.) HENCE , this writ petition seeking a declaration that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 1. 6. 2007 as well as the consequential award dated 17. 6. 2008 passed by the 3rd respondent are arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) IT is further stated that so far as 20 guntas of land situated in Sy. No. 300/a and 11 guntas of land situated in Sy. No. 300/e, in respect of which the petitioners claim title, notices were issued by the Land Acquisition Officer to one Nunna Jayaprada, Bheemarapu Mangayya who were shown as enjoyers and occupiers as per the enjoyment survey. Both of them failed to attend the award enquiry in spite of repeated notices. The names of the petitioners were not found in the revenue record as pattadars or occupiers or enjoyers. Hence, their names were not notified in the notification and award enquiry notices could not be issued to them. It is further stated that even assuming that the petitioners purchased the lands in the year 1997 they failed to take any steps to get their names mutated in the revenue records by the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The survey and sub-division work, including enjoyment survey i. e. , identification of the enjoyers of the land on the spot, took place in the year 2006 and as per the said survey Sri Gaddam Narasaiah, Smt. Nunna Jayaprada, Sri Bheemarapu Mangaiah and Sri Kotha Lingaiah were found as enjoyers of different extents of land situated in Sy. No. 300. It was also found that Smt. Nunna Jayaprada filed O. S. No. 181 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad against one K. Thirupathi Reddy and obtained an order of temporary injunction dated 27. 6. 2006 restraining him from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the land in Sy. No. 300/a1 to an extent of Ac. 4. 24 guntas. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question since 1997 is unfounded and there is no other record to certify the petitioners' ownership since 1997. Therefore, there is no illegality in publishing 4 (1) notification without mentioning the names of the petitioners. It is further explained that the award enquiry notices under Sections 9 (1) and 10 in Form-6 and the notices under Sections 9 (3) and 10 in Form-7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued to all the pattadars, occupants and enjoyers as per Pahani and enjoyment survey twice on 10. 4. 2008 and 26. 4. 2008 calling upon them to attend the enquiry along with documentary evidence to support the ownership rights claimed by them. Notices in Form-6 were affixed on the notice-board of the Tahsildar Office, Dornakal, MPDo Office, Dornakal, O/o. the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Dornakal and Station House Officer, Dornakal on 17. 4. 2008 and 27. 4. 2008. Since there was no response, the Land Acquisition Officer, passed the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation was deposited in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad.