Telangana High Court

Bellamkonda Upender, Nalgonda ... vs The District Collector, Nalgonda ... on 15 September, 2023

Bench: K. Sujana

          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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."