Telangana High Court

Kamsa Bai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 6 February, 2025

Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                         AND
      HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                      L.A.A.S.No.312 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by

the order and decree dated 03.03.2009 passed in O.P.No.11 of

2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad (hereinafter

referred to as 'the trial Court').

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of trial Court

granting a share in the compensation to respondent Nos.2 to 10

and 12 herein. Their grievance is that they were the owners

and possessors of the land that was acquired by the Land

Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad and

that the compensation awarded ought to have been granted

entirely to them and that the trial Court has erred in granting

share in the compensation to respondent Nos.2 to 10 and 12.

3. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are

referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the matter was

referred to the trial Court by the Land Acquisition Officer under

Section 30 of the Act to decide the title in respect of the land

acquired in Survey No.10/A extending to Ac.02-00 guntas and

in survey No.12/6/126 and 12/7/128 to an extent of Ac.08-01

gunta. Before the trial Court, the claimant Nos.1 to 9 i.e.

respondent Nos.1 to 9 filed their claim petition saying that they

are the pattadars and possessors of survey No.10/A

admeasuring Ac.02-00 guntas, situated at Pippaldhari Village,

survey No.12/6 corresponding to 12/126 admeasuring Ac.15-

00 guntas out of which Ac.04-15 guntas was acquired and in

survey No.12/128 admeasuring Ac.03.26 guntas situated at

Pippaldhari Village, Adilabad Mandal and District and that their

father never sold any land to anybody including the other

claimants i.e. respondent Nos.11 to 13. Respondent No.10 has

filed a claim statement stating that respondent Nos.1 to 9 are

the pattadars and possessors and that he is not having any

right or title over the land bearing survey No.10/A and that he

has no objection if compensation is awarded to respondent

Nos.1 to 9. Respondent Nos.11 and 12 have filed petitions

submitting that they are the owners, pattadars and possessors AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

of the land in survey No.12/6 at present 12/126 and 12/128

and it is also called as 12/6/126 and 12/7/128 to an extent of

Ac.10-00 guntas, situated at Pippaldhari Village of Adilabad

Mandal and District and that the said land was acquired by the

Land Acquisition Officer. They further submitted that their

father Are Babanna purchased the said land in the year 1957

from Nayeemullah Khan S/o.Abdul Rahman Khan and that

through him they came into possession over the acquired land.

Respondent No.13 has not filed any claim statement before the

Land Acquisition Officer at the time of award enquiry.

5. Based on the averments, the trial Court has framed the

following points for consideration:

"1. Whether R1 to R9 or R10 is entitled for compensation of Sy.No.10/A extending two acres?

2. Whether R1 to R9 or the legal heirs of Are Babanna are entitled for compensation for the acquired land in Sy.No.12/6/126 and 12/7/128 extending 8-01 gunta?

3. Whether R13 is the daughter of Are Babanna and whether she is entitled to 1/4th share in the compensation amount?"

6. Before the trial Court, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. Based on the evidence on record,

the trial Court has passed the award granting 60% AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

compensation to respondent Nos.11 to 13, 40% compensation

to respondent Nos.1 to 9, 1/4th share out of the 60% is allotted

to respondent No.13, while the claim made by respondent

No.10 was dismissed. The trial Court further held that

respondent No.14 has not filed any claim statement before the

Land Acquisition Officer at the time of Award enquiry, hence,

has not granted any compensation. Aggrieved by the said

award, the present appeal is filed by respondent Nos.11 and 12.

7. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants, learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing

for respondent No.1, Sri N.Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.2 to 10 and Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi,

learned counsel for respondent No.12.

8. Learned appellants counsel has argued that the

appellants father Are Babanna has purchased the land to an

extent of Ac.10-00 guntas in survey No.12/16 (old) at present

Survey Nos.12/126 and 12/128 and that it is also called as

12/6/126 and 12/7/128 situated at Pappaldhari Village,

Adilabad Mandal and District from one Nayeemullah Khan

S/o.Abdul Rahman Khan in the year 1957 and that respondent AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

Nos.2 to 10 herein are the legal heirs of said Nayeemullah

Khan. His contention is that ever since the date of purchase,

the appellants father was cultivating the land and that after

him, the appellants as his legal heirs came into possession of

the land and that the respondents have no right whatsoever in

the acquired land and therefore, are not entitled to any share in

the compensation. He further contended that the trial Court

has erroneously granted a share to the LRs of Nayeemullah

Khan i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 9. It is also contended that the

trial Court has wrongly decided that Sadula Hanma Bai i.e.

respondent No.13 is the daughter of Are Babanna and has

erroneously granted her a share in compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has

submitted that the trial Court has rightly granted the

compensation, that respondent Nos.1 to 9 are the LRs of

Nayeemullah Khan who was the pattadar of the acquired lands

and that the appellants herein have failed to prove their title

before the trial Court and that they have not submitted a single

document in support of their title. Therefore, he has prayed

this Court to uphold the order and decree passed by the trial

Court.

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

10. Considering the above facts, the following points arise for

consideration:

1. Whether the respondent Nos.1 to 14 are entitled to any compensation. If so, to what extent?

2. Whether the trial Court's order and decree need any interference?

3. To what relief?

11. POINT NO.1:

a) A perusal of the entire record throws light on an

undisputed fact that claimants No.1 to 9 are the legal heirs of

Nayeemullah Khan. It is borne out by record that the

statements of pattadars were recorded by the Revenue

Divisional Officer and the appellants herein have not filed any

document to prove their title. Respondent No.1 who was

examined as PW1 before the trial Court has stated that Are

Babanna was cultivating the land. Ex.A1 is the Pahani relied

upon by the claimant Nos.11 and 12.

b) A perusal of Ex.A1 reveals that Nayeemullah Khan is the

pattadar of the acquired land while Are Babanna is shown as

the purchaser of the said land. However, entries in Pahani do

not confer any title. But for this document, the claimant AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

Nos.11 and 12 have not filed any document in support of their

contention that they are the owners of the acquired land.

c) Ex.A2 is the copy of the orders of Special Deputy Collector

dated 13.02.2001. It is elicited from the said exhibit that

respondent No.1 was the petitioner and respondent Nos.11 and

12 were the respondents and the Special Deputy Collector has

held that the agreement of sale dated 21.06.1957 executed

between Nayeemullah Khan and Are Babanna, is not hit by the

provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer

Regulation, 1959 (for short "A.P.S.A.L.T.R, 1959"). A perusal of

Ex.A3 which happens to be the proceedings before the Revenue

Divisional Officer vide proceedings No.L/6319/78 Case No.32,

dated 24.09.1981 wherein the father of respondent Nos.11 and

12 i.e. Are Babanna happens to be the appellant, challenging

the orders of Joint Collector by which their claim to be declared

as protected tenant in survey No.12/30 was dismissed and it

was held that one Kasiram, is proved to be the protected

tenant, was declared to be the holder of 38-E patta certificate

for survey No.12/30 to an extent of Ac.07-00 guntas instead of

Sy.No.12/17, situated at Pippaldhari Village of Adilabad Taluk.

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

Ex.A3 does not aid respondent Nos.11 and 12 in any way to

prove their title.

d) The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 clearly established that

Nayeemullah Khan was the pattadar and Are Babanna was the

occupier of the land. It is also admitted by the respondent

Nos.11 and 12 that the land was not mutated in favour of their

father, Are Babanna though there was alleged purchase under

Sadabainama. No patta was granted in favour of Babanna.

The wife of Are Babanna as PW3 clearly deposed that patta was

not mutated in favour of Babanna and that the same is

standing in the name of Nayeemullah Khan, the father of

respondent Nos.1 to 9. Considering the above said facts, it is

held that respondent Nos.1 to 9 are the pattadars and Are

Babanna is the occupier.

e) Another dispute raised before the trial Court is that

respondent No.13 is not the daughter of Are Babanna. It is

elicited through the evidence of PW4 (respondent No.13) that

Are Babanna was her father and Lasumabai was her mother,

who is the first wife of Are Babanna. It is further elicited from

her that her mother died while she was around 10 years old AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

and that after the death of her mother, Are Babanna married

PW3 and through her, respondent Nos.11 and 12 were born.

The said evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of

PWs 5 and 6. PW5 is Are Lasmanna. Through his evidence, it

is elicited that Are Babanna is his Senior Paternal Uncle and

that Lasumabai was the first wife of Are Babanna and

respondent No.13 is their daughter. PW6 also deposed on

similar lines, he happens to be the younger brother of

Lasumabai. Therefore, it is held that respondent No.13 is the

daughter of Are Babanna and is entitled to a share in the

compensation. Therefore, based on Ex.A1, Are Babanna who is

the father of respondent Nos.11 to 13 is held to be the occupier

of the land and thus respondent Nos.11 to 13 are entitled to a

share in the compensation. It is further held that respondent

Nos.1 to 9 who are the sons of pattadar/Nayeemullah Khan are

also entitled to a share in the compensation. Since, respondent

No.10 has filed claim statement expressing no objection for

granting compensation to respondent Nos.1 to 9, nothing is

awarded in his favour. Respondent No.14 has not filed any

claim statement before the trial Court, the trial Court has AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

dismissed the claim against her. There is no challenge on the

said aspect before this Court.

f) Now the appellants are aggrieved that they were not given

the entire compensation but a share was given to the

respondents and that the respondents are not at all entitled to

any share in the compensation.

g) Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the

appellants participated in the award enquiry and submitted all

the documents showing their ownership and title and that they

proved their title. But the record discloses that they only filed

Exs.A1 to A3 which do not prove their title in any way as

discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The entries in pahani

do not confer any title, however, considering the said entries in

Ex.A1 and the oral evidence on record, the trial Court has

rightly held that the appellants were in possession of the land

but they did not have a valid title. Hence, the contention of the

learned counsel cannot be considered in this regard.

h) Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that

after the death of Nayeemullah Khan the matter was brought by

his son before the Special Deputy Collector (TW) Utnoor and AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

that after considering the entire evidence on record, the

judgment was passed in favour of the appellants vide case

No.TWA2/881/96 and TWA2/882/96 dated 13.02.2001 (Ex.A2)

and that it became final. He further argued that respondent

No.2 is also a party to the above proceedings and that he has

not challenged the same through an appeal. His contention is

that since the said judgment was not challenged by respondent

No.2 herein, the appellants have to be considered as the owners

of the land and therefore, the legal heirs of Nayeemullah Khan

should not be awarded any compensation.

i) It is already discussed in preceding paragraph that under

Ex.A2 the Special Deputy Collector has held that the agreement

of sale stated to have been entered into by Nayeemullah Khan

and Are Babanna is not covered under Andhra Pradesh

Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. Further,

considering the said orders under Ex.A2, even if the said

agreement of sale is held to be valid, an agreement of sale does

not confer any title. PW2 and the appellants herein have

admitted that Nayeemullah Khan is the pattadar of the property

and that they have not taken any steps to mutate the property

in their name.

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

j) Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that

respondent No.13 is not the daughter of Are Babanna and

therefore, a share in the compensation ought not to have been

granted to her. It is already held above that respondent No.13

is the daughter of Are Babanna and hence, she too is entitled to

compensation and therefore, the argument of the appellants

counsel in this regard does not hold any strength. Hence, it is

held that respondent Nos.1 to 9 are entitled to a compensation

as they are the legal heirs of pattadars while respondent Nos.11

to 13 are entitled to compensation, as the legal representatives

of the possessor.

k) Thus, considering the evidence on record, it is held that

the compensation is to be awarded to both the pattadars and

the possessors/cultivators. Now with regard to the

apportionment of compensation, there is no straight jacket

formula to be followed while fixing the compensation among the

pattadars and possessors.

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

l) In Union of India v. A.Ajit Singh 1, the Apex Court dealt

with the apportionment of compensation between the landlord

and the tenant. In the said case, there is a lease deed in

existence and after making a detailed discussion of the

judgments in Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana 2, Inder

Parshad v. Union of India 3 and Col.Sir Harinder Singh Brar

Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal 4, the Apex Court has held that

since the lease is for 99 years and the part of lease has been

enjoyed for a period of 18 years, it was felt by the Apex Court to

grant apportionment of the compensation in the ratio of 60% to

the tenant and 40% to the landlord to be a reasonable ratio.

m) It is already held in the preceding paragraph that the

heirs of Nayeemullah Khan are the pattadars and the heirs of

Are Babanna are the occupiers of the acquired land. Hence, in

the light of the above cited decision and in view of the above

held discussion, it is held that the apportionment of

compensation in the ratio of 40% to pattadars and 60% to

possessors is held to be justified and appropriate to meet the

ends of justice.

(1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 50

(1996) 8 SCC 664

(1994) 5 SCC 239

(1994) 4 SCC 523 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312_2009

12. POINT NO.2:

In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point No.1, it is

held that the trial court's order and decree do not need any

interference and hence, the same are upheld.

13. POINT NO.3:

In the result, this appeal is dismissed upholding the order

and decree dated 03.03.2009 passed in O.P.No.11 of 2007 by

the learned Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad. No costs.