Telangana High Court

S. Anand Kumar vs Special Deputy Collector on 31 January, 2025

Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                      AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                        LAAS.No.62 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Heard Sri Ch.Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri Aleti Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent

No.2. Perused the entire material available on record.

2. This Appeal, under Section 74 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, (for brevity 'the Act'), is filed by the appellant aggrieved by

the order and decree dated 26.12.2022 passed in L.A.O.P.No.224

of 2015 on the file of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Courts, Secunderabad, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the

Reference Court"), only to the extent of disallowing his claim for

compensation in respect of one Ramesh Kumari's 1/3rd share in the

subject property of Mukundlal's branch.

3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that the Land

Acquisition Officer acquired the property known as 'Moti Mahal

Hotel' bearing premises Nos.8-2-241 and 8-2-242, admeasuring

102.60 square yards for the purpose of road widening from YMCA

to Secunderabad Station (Metrorail project); that Draft notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act and the Draft declaration under 2 AKS, J & LNA, J

Section 6 of the Act were published in Hyderabad District Gazette;

that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on

conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award,

dated 26.09.2014; that later, as per the directions of this Court in

W.P.No.31523 of 2014, the Land Acquisition Officer re-

determined the compensation for the acquired property and

enhanced the same to Rs.1,50,10,254/-, vide Award proceedings

dated 21.01.2015, towards both the value of the acquired land and

the structure existing on it, however, as there arose a title dispute,

i.e., dispute in respect of payment of compensation to the rightful

owners, he referred the matter under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act

to the competent Civil Court, which was numbered as

LAOP.No.224 of 2015.

4. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of Claimant No.1, he

himself got examined as P.W-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-10 and Exs.A-54

to A-59 were marked. On behalf of Claimant No.2, he got himself

examined as P.W-2 and Exs.A-11 to A-34 were marked and on

behalf of Claimant No.3, he got himself examined as P.W-3 and

Exs.A-35 to A-53 and Exs.R-1 to R-9 were marked. On the other

hand, on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Special 3 AKS, J & LNA, J

Deputy Collector/LAO Metro Rail Project was examined as C.W-1

and Exs.C-1 to C-3 were marked.

5. The Reference Court, on due appreciation of the entire

evidence, both oral and documentary, placed before it, allowed the

LAOP and directed that the total compensation of Rs.1,51,10,254/-

awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer be apportioned among

Claimant Nos.1 and 2, i.e.., Claimant No.1 is entitled to a sum of

Rs.96,12,570/-, whereas Claimant No.2 is entitled to a sum of

Rs.54,67,684/- and further, Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to

accrued interest, if any, over the deposited amount proportionate to

their respective shares. The Reference Court further held that

Claimant No.3 is not entitled to any apportionment in the

compensation amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant No.1 inter alia

contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the

documents filed by the appellant/Claimant No.1 in proper

perspective, especially Ex.A-57-sale deed executed by one Ramesh

Kumari in favour of Claimant No.1; that the Reference Court failed

to take note of the fact that the SLP filed by Claimant No.2 and

others against the order passed in CCCA.No.326 of 2007

dismissing the Appeal, thereby setting aside the preliminary decree 4 AKS, J & LNA, J

passed in O.S.No.6 of 2002, was withdrawn and therefore, the

doctrine of lis pendense is not applicable to the present case; that

the Reference Court has failed to take note of the observations

made by this Court in CCCA.No.326 of 2007 that the suit-

O.S.No.6 of 2002 is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e.,

Ramesh Kumari to the suit; that the Reference Court ought to have

seen that when Claimant No.1 acquired rights over the share of

Ramesh Kumari in the subject property by virtue of a registered

sale deed, though it was executed pending litigation, such

alienation would be subject to the outcome of the litigation and as

such, the Reference Court erred in disallowing the claim of

Claimant No.1 on the ground that sale deed was executed by

Ramesh Kumari in favour of Claimant No.1 pending adjudication

and therefore, the same cannot be considered. By contending thus,

learned counsel prayed to allow the Appeal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for Claimant No.2 inter alia

contended that Ramesh Kumari has no right or claim towards her

share in the subject property as she relinquished her rights by way

of filing affidavit before the Income Tax Department; that Ramesh

Kumari did not take any course of action to challenge the Will of

Shantha Kumari or get herself impleaded in the suit filed for 5 AKS, J & LNA, J

partition-O.S.No.6 of 2002 or LAOP.No.224 of 2015; and that

therefore, learned counsel contended that the Reference Court has

rightly considered the said aspect and passed the impugned order,

which requires no interference by this Court.

Consideration:-

8. Claimant No.1 filed the present Appeal challenging the order

of the Reference Court in not granting compensation to him to the

extent of Ramesh Kumari's 1/3rd share in the subject property of

Mukundlal's branch. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to delve

into other aspects/facts of the case, which are not subject matter of

the present appeal.

9. Indisputably, Mukundlal's Branch and Shiv Narayan's

branch are entitled to half share each in the subject property.

Claimant No.1 in his Claim Statement filed before the Reference

Court has categorically admitted the said aspect and therefore, the

legal heirs of Mukundlal have share in the subject property.

10. Admittedly, Ramesh Kumari is daughter of Mukundlal and

Shantha Kumari being wife, and Om Prakash and Ramesh Kumari

being children of Mukundlal are all his legal heirs.

11. However, here, it is pertinent to note that Claimant No.2 and

his brother, who are sons of Om Prakash, i.e., grand children of 6 AKS, J & LNA, J

Mukundlal, and their mother have filed suit in O.S.No.6 of 2002 on

the file of Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, against the legal

heirs of Shiv Narayana, seeking partition of the plaint schedule

properties, based on the registered Will executed by the wife of

Mukundlal-Shantha Kumari bequeathing her half share in the

properties of Mukundlal in favour of the plaintiffs. A preliminary

decree was passed in the said suit. Challenging the same, the legal

heirs of Shiv Narayana filed CCCA.No.326 of 2007 before the

erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. This Court, on re-appreciating the

evidence on record, allowed the appeal by judgment, dated

08.03.2018 and set aside the judgment of the trial Court, by

observing that Shantha Kumari, W/o Mukundlal, cannot execute a

Will in favour of the plaintiffs claiming to be owner of half of the

properties of Mukundlal, in exclusion of rights of other legal heirs

of Mukundlal, and further held that though plaintiff Nos.2 and 3,

who are Claimant No.2 and his brother, are entitled to seek

partition, in view of fact that the suit is bad for non-joinder of

necessary and proper parties, no relief can be granted.

12. Further, this Court cannot lost sight of the fact that in

SLP (C).No.24449 of 2018 filed by the plaintiffs against the said 7 AKS, J & LNA, J

judgment, learned counsel for the plaintiffs represented that he has

instructions to withdraw the suit itself and accordingly, the Special

Leave Petition was disposed of recording that the suit-O.S.No.6 of

2002 is disposed of as withdrawn by the plaintiffs with liberty to

approach the Reference Court in the LAOP.

13. Claimant No.1 in the LAOP before the Reference Court

claimed compensation in respect of share of Ramesh Kumari, i.e.,

1/3rd out of the share of Mukundlal's branch in the subject property

on the ground that the said Ramesh Kumari executed registered

sale deed, dated 19.02.2015, vide document bearing No.435 of

2015, in his favour, which was marked as Ex.A-57.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and having regard

to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the

parties, now, the issues that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the Ramesh Kumari has got 1/3rd share out of half

share of subject property belonging to Mukundlal's

branch.

(ii) Whether the sale deed executed by Ramesh Kumari in

favour of Claimant No.1 is valid in the eye of law.

(iii) If so, to what relief?

8 AKS, J & LNA, J

Issue No.1:-

15. For adjudicating this issue, it is relevant to note that

originally, O.S.No.6 of 2002 was filed by Mukundlal's branch

against Shiv Narayana's branch seeking partition of the suit

schedule properties and a preliminary decree was passed in the said

suit. Challenging the said preliminary decree, Shiv Narayana's

branch filed CCCA.No.326 of 2007, as stated supra. This Court, on

re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, allowed the

Appeal, making certain observations which are extracted hereunder

for better appreciation:-

"It is clear now that Shantha Kumari and Mukundlal had two children, viz., Omprakash and Ramesh Kumari. Therefore, on the death of Mukundlal, Omprakash, Ramesh Kumari and Shantha Kumari had a share in the suit schedule property."

16. Further, in the penultimate para of the judgment in

CCCA.No.326 of 2007, it is observed as hereunder:-

"Even though the issues 4 and 5 are decided in favour of the plaintiffs holding that they are entitled to seek a partition, in view of the fact that the suit is bad for non- joinder of parties, no relief can be granted to the plaintiffs."

17. Therefore, from the above, it is evident that Ramesh Kumari

has got 1/3rd share in the properties of Mukundlal's branch.

9 AKS, J & LNA, J

Further, it is pertinent to note that SLP filed challenging the

judgment dated passed in CCCA.No.326 of 2007 was withdrawn

by the Mukundlal's branch with liberty to agitate their rights in the

pending LAOP. Thus, the observations made by this Court in

CCCA.No.326 of 2007 have become final and binding on the

parties.

18. From the aforesaid judgment of this Court in

CCCA.No.326, which are final and binding on the parties, the

rights of the parties vis-à-vis Ramesh Kumari are crystallized in

respect of her 1/3rd share in the properties of Mukundlal's branch.

19. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered.

Issue No.2:-

20. Before the Reference Court, Claimant No.2 filed counter,

wherein he has taken a plea that Ramesh Kumari has filed an

affidavit before the Income Tax Department relinquishing her

rights in respect of her share in the properties of Mukundlal.

21. It is settled principle of law that rights in immovable

properties will get extinguished or transferred only through a

registered document. Further, under Section 17 of the Registration

Act, any document executed in respect of property, the value of 10 AKS, J & LNA, J

which is more than Rs.100/- has to be registered. Therefore, mere

filing of affidavit by Ramesh Kumari before the Income Tax

Department would not extinguish her rights in respect of her share

in the subject property.

22. Further, Claimant No.2 in support of his aforesaid plea, has

got marked Exs.A-32 to 34. It is apposite to note that the said

documents are marked before the Reference Court subject to

objection. However, as no evidence was adduced by Claimant No.2

for proving the said documents, the Reference Court has rightly

held that the said documents cannot be relied upon by Claimant

No.2.

23. In the light of the above observation of the Reference Court

and also in view of the aforesaid settled principle of law and

Section 17 of the Registration Act, Exs.A-32 to A-33 are per se not

valid under law and therefore, the said contention is untenable.

24. It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order, the

Reference Court has observed that sale deed-ExA-57 was executed

by Ramesh Kumari pending adjudication of the case and therefore,

it cannot be taken into consideration.

11 AKS, J & LNA, J

25. Though the said Ramesh Kumari has executed Ex.A-57,

dated 19.02.205, in favour of Claimant No.1 alienating her share in

Mukundlal's share in the subject property during the pendency of

LAOP before the Reference Court, i.e., pendente lite, the same

would be subject to result of the LAOP. In the impugned order,

when the Reference Court held that Exs.A-32 to A-34, by virtue of

which Claimant No.2 sought to plead that the said Ramesh Kumari

has relinquished her share in the properties of Mukundlal, are not

proved, it necessarily means that rights of Ramesh Kumari are not

relinquished in respect of her share in Mukundlal's properties and

her share in Mukundlal's properties is subsisting. Therefore, she

was entitled to execute sale deed in respect of her share in the

subject property in favour of Claimant No.1.

26. It is appropriate to refer to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in K.N.Aswathnarayana Setty Vs. State of Karnataka 1,

wherein it is held as under:-

"In fact, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation."

(2014) 15 SCC 394 12 AKS, J & LNA, J

27. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the present case as the

facts are almost identical.

28. In the case on hand, Claimant No.1 is said to have

purchased a portion of acquired property from one Ramesh Kumari

after publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, he steps into the shoes of the

said Ramesh Kumari and is entitled to compensation to the extent

of her share in the subject property.

29. In the light of the same, this Court holds that the Reference

Court grossly erred in not taking into consideration Ex.A-57-sale