PADIDAM CHINA CHANCHU MUNUSWAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 to 3 and respondent No. 3 are brothers. The petitioners 4,5,6 arid respondent No. 4 are the daughters-in-law of the family. By issuing a notification under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the Act) dt: 17-11-98 the first respondent proposed to acquire an extent of Ac. 4-19 cents in S.No. 248/2B and 249/2 of Venkatagiri village and Mandal, Nellore District. The award proceedings were initiated and the Land Acquisition Officer, the second respondent herein is yet to make an award under Section 12 of the Act. It may be noted that the petitioners were not given notice under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act. There is another important chapter in the litigation. The petitioners herein filed a suit against the respondents 3 and 4 herein being O.S.No. 19 of 1998 on the file of 1st Addl. District Judge, Nellore for partition of properties in S.No. 246/2, 247/2, 249 and 248/2. Concedingly, the land in two survey numbers which is sought to be acquired by the second respondent do not form part of the plaint schedule. However, it is admitted by both the sides that the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed an interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 praying for amendment of the plaint. The same is pending. It is also the case of the parties that the competent authority granted title pass-book and record of rights pass- book in favour of the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein carried the matter in appeal under Section 5 (1) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971. The same is pending.

(2.) Apprehending that the Land Acquisition Officer might pass award in favour of the respondents 3 and 4, the petitioners jointly made a claim statement before the Land Acquisition Officer. In the claim statement they also brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer that having come to know that award proceedings are pending, they gave a notice requesting to be put on notice. As no notice is issued, they were constrained to make the claim statement. They also prayed the Land Acquisition Officer to award a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre and apportion the amount among all the four brothers. It is to be noticed that the petitioners 1 to 3 never intended to appropriate the entire compensation for themselves and in fact they asked for equal shares among four brothers including the 3rd respondent herein. However, the Land Acquisition Officer did not pass any orders considering the claim petition. Apprehending that an award might be passed and that the entire compensation amount might be paid to the respondents 3 and 4, the petitioners filed this writ petition for a declaration that the action of the second respondent in not referring the dispute under Section 30 of the Act to the Civil Court is illegal and for a consequential direction to pay the compensation to all the interested parties. The respondents 3 and 4 entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. The main submission in the counter- affidavit is that the property in question exclusively belongs to respondents 3 and 4, and that by their conduct the petitioners themselves have admitted to this. To substantiate this, they cited two instances. Firstly, the partition suit filed by the petitioners wherein no relief is sought in respect of the property in question and secondly the factum that the competent authority has issued record of rights pass book to respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, the respondents would desire this Court to draw an inference that the petitioners have no manner of right in the property. Based on this counter, the learned senior Counsel Sri. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam has vehemently contended that this is not a case where the petitioners should be shown any indulgence either by the Land Acquisition Officer or by this Court in making a reference under Section 30 of the Act. It is also further contended that even in the pending suit, an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is filed by the petitioners seeking injunction against the Land Acquisition Officer not to pay compensation to defendants 1 and 2 therein and the same is pending. The petitioners cannot pursue two parallel remedies and therefore he prays this Court (not) to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel and the Government Pleader for LandAcquisition.