The Govt. Of A.P, Rep.By Its Prl. ... vs M.Anjaiah Died Per Lrs
2023 Latest Caselaw 2229 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                  WRIT APPEAL No.91 of 2007

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


      Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned Special

Government Pleader appears for the appellants.

      Mr.     S.V.    Ramana,      learned    counsel       representing

Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appears for

respondent Nos.4 to 8.

2. This intra court appeal has been filed against an order

dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition No.10215 of 2005.

3. The facts giving rise for filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the land belonging to respondent No.1 (writ

petitioner) measuring 914 square yards situated at Sangam,

Langar House, Gudimalkapur, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad,

was required for construction of Bapu Ghat. A notification

under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (briefly CJ & NVSK, J

'the Act' hereinafter) was issued on 14.11.1996 for acquisition

of land admeasuring 6766 square meters. Thereafter,

declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on

09.12.1997.

Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.751

of 1998 challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1)

of the Act and declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act.

In the said Writ Petition, an interim order was granted

on 12.01.1998, which was made absolute

on 09.11.1999.

During pendency of the said Writ Petition, respondent

No.1 made an application seeking allotment of an alternative

land.

On 01.02.2000, an award was passed. Since there was a

dispute with regard to title in respect of the land in question,

the dispute was referred under Section 30 of the Act vide

LAOP.No.20 of 2000 for adjudication before the civil Court.

CJ & NVSK, J

Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition viz.,

W.P.No.10215 of 2005 questioning the memo

dated 25.01.2023 issued by the Special Deputy Collector,

Land Acquisition, by which the claim of respondent No.1 for

allotment of alternative land was rejected. The said Writ

Petition was dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2006 against

which respondent No.1 filed a writ appeal viz., W.A.No.172 of

2006. A Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter for

reconsideration. The learned Single Judge, thereupon, by an

order dated 23.11.2006, has allowed W.P.No.10215

of 2005 and has directed the appellants to allot an alternative

land to respondent No.1 subject to adjudication of the dispute

pertaining to title, which was pending before the reference

Court. Hence, the appellants (respondents in the writ petition)

have filed the present appeal. During pendency of the present

appeal, respondent No.1 died and his legal representatives

were brought on record vide order dated 01.02.2011 passed in

W.A.M.P.No.76 of 2011.

CJ & NVSK, J

4. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the

Reference Court vide judgment dated 26.09.2018 passed in

LAOP.No.20 of 2000 has adjudicated the title in respect of the

land in question. It has been held that respondent No.1 has no

title in respect of the land in question. It is also pointed out that

the aforesaid judgment dated 26.09.2018 has attained finality.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4

to 8 has invited the attention of this Court to para 5 of the

affidavit filed today and it has been submitted that an

application for substitution is pending before the Reference

Court.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made on both

sides.

7. Admittedly, the question of title as on today has been

adjudicated against respondent No.1. The judgment dated

26.09.2018 passed by a Reference Court in LAOP.No.20 of

2000 operates against respondent No.1. In the aforesaid

judgment, the Reference Court has held that respondent No.1 CJ & NVSK, J

has no title in respect of the land in question. Therefore, the

order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge to

allot alternative land to respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in

the eye of law. It is accordingly set aside.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

________________________ N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J th 11 SEPTEMBER, 2023.

kvni