THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT No.998 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.176 of 2012 dated 17.04.2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda.
2. The appellants herein were claimant Nos.7 and 8 in L.A.O.P.No.176 of 2012 which was filed praying to award compensation amount of Rs.18,40,182/- to the appellants herein in two equal shares, deposited by respondent No.2 therein. The said L.A.O.P., was dismissed by the Court below vide judgment dated 17.04.2017. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that Sri Bellamkonda Upender and Sri Padam Sriramulu (hereinafter referred as 'appellants herein') who are claimant Nos.7 and 8, respectively, in L.A.O.P.No.176 of 2012 are the owners, possessors and pattedars of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.01.30¾ guntas in Survey No.39 of Bhagayath Bhongir, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District. The appellants herein purchased the said land through two registered sale deeds vide document Nos.4096/2010 and 4097/2010 of SRO, SKS, J A.S.No.998 of 2017 2 Bhongir, from its original pattedars by names Sri Akula Janardhan, Sri Akula Sudershan and Sri Akula Dwarakanath - claimant Nos.2, 4 and 5 in L.A.O.P.No.176 of 2012. Ever since the date of purchase, the appellants herein were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the purchased land and were absolute owners of the said land. The said two registered sale deeds were implemented in the revenue records and the revenue authorities issued the ROR pattedar passbooks and title deeds comprising of Ac.00.19¾ guntas each, since the remaining Ac.00.30¾ guntas of land was acquired by Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Bhongir (hereinafter referred as 'respondent No.2 therein') for laying National Highway Road 202.
4. The respondent No.2 therein passed an Award dated 28.08.2010 through which he acquired dry land from claimant Nos.1 to 5 therein admeasuring 5159.7465 Sq.mts in Survey No.39 for which an amount of Rs.30,66,970.00/- was awarded. Out of the above stated acquired land, the land of appellants herein, works out to be 3095.8479 Sq.mts which is equivalent to Ac.00.30¾ guntas over which they were entitled for compensation amount of Rs.18,40,182.00/-. Accordingly they filed application claiming compensation for their share of land which was acquired SKS, J A.S.No.998 of 2017 3 by respondent No.2 therein but the respondent No.2 therein advised them to get recorded the statements of claimant Nos.2, 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred as 'vendors of appellants herein') who were vendors of appellants herein, admitting that they have no objection if the awarded amount gets released to appellants herein. Accordingly, Tahsildar, Bhongir - respondent No.3, recorded the statements of vendors of appellants herein, but in spite of that, respondent No.2 therein, did not release the amount awarded to appellants herein stating that one claimant No.6 - Smt Nayakam Susheelamma, filed an objection petition. Thereupon, the appellants herein filed W.P.No.19808 of 2011 before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, seeking relief to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 therein to pay the compensation amount to petitioners therein who are claimant Nos.7 and 8 in L.A.O.P., in respect of their land acquired to the extent of Ac.00.30¾ guntas in Survey No.39 of Bhongir Revenue Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
5. Going through the order passed in W.P.No.19808 of 2011 it is noted that after the Award was passed fixing compensation, as no person claimed the compensation, the same was deposited in revenue account by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the appellants SKS, J A.S.No.998 of 2017 4 herein approached respondent No.2 claiming the compensation on the lands acquired for the purpose of road widening of Highway No.202. However, other claimants did not file any claim petition and no counter was filed by the Government to contest the case of claimants therein. Further, it was noticed that a person named Smt Nayakam Suseelamma made representation claiming that she is entitled for compensation over the lands acquired. The High Court vide order dated 15.11.2011 directed the respondent No.2 therein to refer the dispute relating to the person who are entitled to receive the compensation in respect of Ac.00.303/4 guntas of Survey No.39 of Bhagayath Bhongir Village, Bhongir Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District, to the competent Civil Court, within a period of two months. As such, they filed L.A.O.P.No.176 of 2012 in the District Court, Nalgonda.
6. In L.A.O.P.No.176 of 2012 on behalf of appellants herein, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 - certified copies of two registered sale deeds dated 03.11.2010 were marked. There was no evidence adduced on behalf of the Government. There was no dispute regarding the fact that the Government acquired the said land for the purpose of widening the State Highway and in the said process, the respondent No.2 therein also issued notices to Akula Janardhan, Akula Sudershan, Akula SKS, J A.S.No.998 of 2017 5 Dwarakanath, Akula Vidyavathi, Akula Ramakrishna, Nayakam Susheelamma, Bellamkonda Upender and Padam Sriramulu for their claim, if any, in respect of land acquired by the Government in Survey No.39 of Bagayath Bhongir, Bhongir Revenue Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Subsequently, Akula Sudershan filed a claim petition before the RDO/Land Acquisition Officer, Bhongir, who advised him to establish his right over the acquired land. As such, claimant Nos.7 & 8 filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court directed the Government to refer the matter to the Civil Court, as such, the Government deposited the amount in Civil Court. In the impugned judgment, the trial Court observed that there are discrepancies in the survey numbers and the property was purchased after issuance of land acquisition notice, as such, dismissed the L.A.O.P. However, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in the said L.A.O.P., the claimant Nos.7 and 8 filed this appeal.
7. Heard Smt Sunitha Akula, learned counsel for appellants, and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents.
8. Learned counsel for appellants, contended that even though the respondents became ex parte before the Court below, the learned Judge failed to consider the same. The appellants herein SKS, J A.S.No.998 of 2017 6 filed the registered sale deeds dated 03.11.2010 which clearly shows that the land was transferred in their favor and the Encumbrance Certificate also shows the same. She submitted that the Court below ought to have appreciated the fact that the vendors of appellants herein recorded statements admitting that they have no objection if the award amount gets released to appellants herein. She also submitted that the learned judge erred in saying that the survey number mentioned in both the sale deeds does not tally and the same seems doubtful. She also contended that the Court below has dismissed the claim without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence. As such, prayed this Court to allow the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2017 in L.A.O.P.No.176 of 2012.
9. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the Government has already deposited the amount in the Civil Court.
10. To prove the case before the Court below, on behalf of appellants herein, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 - certified copies of two registered sale deeds dated 03.11.2010 bearing document Nos.4096/2010 and 4097/2010, respectively, were marked. It was noticed that both the sale deeds were executed after the issuance of land acquisition proceedings SKS, J A.S.No.998 of 2017 7 by the concerned land acquisition officer. As per the sale deed bearing No.4096/2010 the survey number was mentioned as 39/A/1, 39/A/3 & 39/A/4 and the same was mentioned in sale deed bearing No.4097/2010 as well, but the same does not tally with the survey number mentioned by the Government and to that extent there was no cross examination.
11. On going through the material placed on record and having regard to the submissions made, it is noted that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 clearly proves that the appellants herein purchased the property from the original owners. After issuance of notices to the original land owners and after acquiring the land for the purpose of releasing the compensation amount in favor of appellants herein, their vendors were supposed to record a statement admitting no objection if the awarded amount gets released in favour of appellants herein. Accordingly, the statements of vendors of appellants herein were recorded and the Government also had no objection if there is no claim over the said property. However, a person by name Smt Nayakam Suseelamma who made a representation claiming that she is entitled to receive compensation over the land acquired for the purpose of widening Highway Road No.202 who was also made a party in L.A.O.P.No.176 of 2012 has not contested the case and no SKS, J A.S.No.998 of 2017 8 material was filed on her behalf. With regard to the contention that the survey numbers were not tallying, the Court is informed that the same was due to sub division of land, as a result of which the survey numbers were mentioned as 39/A/1, 39/A/3 & 39/A/4 instead of original survey No.39. As the original owners of the land in survey No.39, Bhongir Revenue Village gave no objection for releasing the compensation amount to these appellants and the appellants also clarified about the sub-division of survey numbers.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in V.Chandrasekaran and Another Vs. Administrative Officer and Others 1 held as under:
"18. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that a person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title."1
(2012) 12 SCC 133 SKS, J A.S.No.998 of 2017 9
13. In view of the observation in the above case, after issuance of land acquisition notice, the subsequent purchaser shall not be entitled to question the acquisition but can claim the compensation. In the present case, the appellants are claiming compensation only, as such, dismissal of their claim is not correct.
14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.176 of 2012 dated 17.04.2017. Appellants/claimant Nos.7 & 8 are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.18,40,182.00/- as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, equally.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SUJANA, J Date : 15.09.2023 PT SKS, J A.S.No.998 of 2017 10 HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA P.D. JUDGMENT IN APPEAL SUIT No.998 OF 2017 Date: 15.09.2023 PT