Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sajja Prabhakar And Ors. vs Spl. Tahsildar (L.A.), Krishnapatnam ... on 30 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)ALD791, 2006(1)ALT224
JUDGMENT B. Prakash Rao, J.
1. The appellants in these two appeals are the claimants, who seek to assail the judgment and decrees in LA.O.P. No. 98 of 1995 and L.A.OP. No. 1994 of 1995 dated 1 -5-1998 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nellore. Since both these appeals involve common questions, they are being taken up together for disposal.
2. Both the cases arise out of a reference made under Section 30 read with Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Krishnapatnam Thermal Power Station (K.T.P.S.), Nellore and the Authorised Officer and Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Nellore.
3. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of these two cases and which are undisputed are that on the requisition made by the then A.P. State Electricity Board, Hyderabad for establishing Krishnapatnam Thermal Power Station, an extent of Ac.450-62 cents was acquired by the Government in six reaches as per the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in A.P. Gazette dated 29-5-1993 and the same was followed up by a final draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act published in the A.P. Gazette on 25-10-1993. After following the other procedures as contemplated under the said Act by publishing in the newspapers and also by holding an enquiry under Section 5-A of the said Act on 14-8-1993 and 24-8-1995, it was stated that the Joint Collector made inspection of the lands on 6-3-1994 and sought to fix the market value at Rs. 9,000/-per acre by taking into consideration the basic value in the locality. However, since the same was not agreeable to the ryots, negotiations were held and on a consensus, the rate was agreed at Rs. 59,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the Government issued Orders in G.O.Ms. No. 226 (Revenue-L.A. Department) dated 2-5-1995 permitting the Collector, Nellore to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs. 59,000/- per acre as package deal. Consequently, an award was passed in Award No. 35/95-96 on 24-8-1995 at the same rate. However, on the aspect of apportionment of compensation, there have been claims by the claimants 1 to 13, in respect of various extents in the first reach consisting of Ac.88-91 cents, which included Ac.44-31 cents in Sy. No. 278/2, Ac.17-07 cents in Sy. No. 279/2 and Ac.27-53 cents in Sy. No. 280/2. Of these extents, claimant No. 1 claimed an extent of 12 acres in Sy. No. 278/2, Claimant Nos. 2 to 5 claimed an extent of 10 acres in Sy. No. 278/2, claimant No. 6 claimed an extent of 10 acres in Sy. No. 278/2 whereas claimant Nos. 7, 8, 10 to 12 claim an extent of Ac.64-60 cents in Sy. Nos. 278/2, 279/2 and 280/2. Of these claimants, claimant No. 7 claimed an extent of 10 acres in pursuance of a registered sale deed dated 16-12-1991, claimant No. 8 claimed 19 acres, in pursuance of a registered sale deed dated 16-12-1991, claimant No. 10 claimed an extent of Ac.16.60 cents in pursuance of a registered sale deed dated 13-12-1991, claimant No. 11 claimed an extent of 10 acres in pursuance of a registered sale deed dated 13-12-1991 and claimant No. 12 claimed an extent of 9 acres in pursuance of a registered sale deed dated 13-12-1991. All these claimants sought to rest their claims on the ground that these lands neither belong to nor were allotted to Yanati family, who filed land ceiling declarations under the provisions of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in C.C.N0.2211/NLR/75, 2212/75 and later in C.C.N0.4/NLR/79. Even as per the registered partition deed dated 19-1-1955, no such allotment was made to the said family or to any member thereof. However, they are the purchasers from their vendors independently, unconnected with Yanati family. Further, it was also pointed out that as per the clearance certificate given by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer dt. 30-6-1995, these lands were not included in the said land ceiling proceedings nor were allotted to the said family and therefore, they are entitled to these aforesaid lands.
4. At this juncture, it is to be noted that in respect of the lands claimed individually by claimants 1 to 13, there are no cross claims or interest by the other. However, at the instance of claimant No. 14, the Government represented through Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Nellore, it was stated that as against the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal in the aforesaid declarations, appeals have been filed in L.R.A. Nos. 2/87 and 35/93 and the same are pending, wherein the acquired lands are subject matter and therefore there is a dispute on entitlement of holding and hence the same is required to be decided on a reference to civil Court as contemplated under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act read with Section 17 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and also item IV under Clause (g) of Section of the Act.
5. Accepting the same, the matter has been referred to the Court below. During the course of enquiry, claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-48 whereas on behalf of claimant No. 14, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. On a consideration thereof, the Court below held that prima facie having regard to the pendency of the land reform appeals, the claimants are not entitled to receive compensation and further it was also held that the claimants did not establish their title. Hence, the appeals at the instance of Claimants 2 to 13.
6. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
7. Having considered the submissions made in detail and also on perusal of the material, the main question, which falls for consideration is as to whether there exists any dispute in regard to the entitlement for compensation as determined in the Award?
8. At the outset, as already stated, there is no dispute to the basic facts, in regard to the acquisition made by the Government at the instance of the A.P. State Electricity Board by Notification issued on 29-5-1993 under Section 4(1) of the Act, in respect of total extent of land of Ac.450.62 cents. The present dispute involves only in regard to the extent of Ac.88-91 cents in the first reach covering Sy. Nos. 278/2,279/2 and 280/2. It is to be noted that of the appellants, Claimants Nos. 2 to 5 claim an extent of 10 acres in Sy. No. 278/2, claimant No. 6 claims 10 acres in Sy. No. 278/2 and claimant Nos. 7, 8,10 to 12 and 13 claim an extent of Ac.64-60 cents. There is absolutely no claim or counter claim or any disputes raised in regard to these independent interests amongst the respective claimants. The main objection revolves at the instance of the claimant No. 14, who is Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Collectorate, Nellore, who claims a dispute on the ground that having regard to the pendency of the land reform proceedings, compensation cannot be paid to the claimants since holding has to be determined to which the declarants are entitled to, vis-a-vis the extents, which the Government has to take over. It is pertinent to notice that except the plea of pendency of land reform proceedings, no claim, right or title or interest whatsoever in nature has been claimed by the Government either through Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition or even that of Land Reforms, in respect of the acquired lands. There is no dispute to the fact that it is only after the acquisition and on a mutual consensus arrived at with the participation of all the claimants, the amount has been determined at Rs. 59,000/- per acre whereupon, the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 226 dated 2-5-1995 and an Award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 24-8-1995.
9. The main case as set up on behalf of the claimants is to the effect that the original extent of the said Block was Acs.557.70 cents belonging to Yanati family and other ryots of Varakavipudi and Pynampuram villages. Whereas the said Yanati Rajarami Reddy and his son Venugopal Reddy are entitled to half share only in the said extent and the balance extent of Ac.278-85 cents belongs to several other ryots, who are the vendors/predecessors in title of the claimants. In support, reliance was sought to be placed on the partition deed dated 19-1-1955, which was marked as Ex. A-33 and it clearly shows that the acquired land is not allotted to any of the members of the Yanati family and the acquired lands are not subject matter of partition among them. The claimants 2 to 5 sought to rest their claims under a registered sale deed dated 25-1-1984 and the subsequent revenue documents. The claimant No. 6 claimed under a registered sale deed dated 27-1 -1984 and the supporting revenue entries. Claimants 7 to 13 claimed the lands to the extent of Ac.64-60 cents in Sy. No. 278/2,279/2 and 280/2 claimed under respective registered sale deeds dated 16-12-1991,13-12-1991 and also Clearance Certificate issued on 30-6-1995 by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer. In support, the claimant No. 1 examined himself as P.W.1 and supported by his brother P.W.2. On behalf of claimant Nos. 7 to 13, P. W.4 who was a General Power of Attorney has been examined and registered sale deeds have been marked as Exs. A-17 to 21. In regard to land reform proceedings, the order of the primary Tribunal was marked as Ex. A-38 dated 2-1 -1987. The Government sought to mark the grounds of appeal in L.R. No. 2/87 as Ex. B-1 to show that the acquired lands are subject matter of the proceedings. There is no dispute to the fact that as against the said order claimants also filed appeal in LR.A. No. 35 of 1993 and the same is pending. Considering Ex.A-38 and Ex.B-1 and also Ex.A-37 revenue proceedings and the subsequent orders passed thereon, the Court below held that the acquired lands are subject matter of the proceedings and prima facie there is a dispute and further the claimants have failed to prove their title.
10. As already stated, the present reference is mainly at the instance of claimant No. 14 representing land reforms authorities, mainly on the ground that having regard to the pendency of the land reform proceedings in LR.A. No. 2 of 1987 and 35 of 1993, the acquired lands also form subject matter of the proceedings and therefore, no compensation can be paid. It is not the claim of the Government either through the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) or Land Reforms that any claim is made independently that of the Government in respect of the acquired lands nor there is any dispute of title as such, in respect of the individual lands claimed amongst the claimants 1 to 13 as such. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any dispute of title as such, in respect of the lands. There is also no dispute to the fact that as per the proceedings initiated by the Government and also negotiations, which have taken place with the claimants, vis-a-vis the Government, the market value has been determined and accepted by the Government by issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 226 dated 2-5-1995 and the award being passed thereof.
11. The entire dispute, as sought to be focused, is only from the angle of pendency of land reform proceedings to show that as along as holding is not determined and excess is pointed out, the claimants would not be entitled to compensation. There is no serious challenge nor any dispute raised in regard to the partition effected as per the registered document, which has been marked as Ex.A-33 dated 19-1-1955. There is also no dispute in regard to its contents to show that the entire land forms part of any partition amongst the members of the Yanati family or any allotment as such of the acquired lands to any of its members. There is no dispute to the fact that Yanati family has got half share in the entire total extent and it is only in regard to the said half extent, which has been partitioned amongst themselves and would not include other half share which has been held by several other ryots, who are vendors of the claimants and who purchased the same under respective registered sale deeds as evidenced from Exs. A-17 to 21.
12. There is no serious challenge in regard to the purchase made by the claimants under aforesaid registered documents and supported by revenue entries, even in regard to possession. It is not the case of the Government either way that the lands, which have been purchased by the claimants as claimed by them under registered sale deeds were at any point of time in possession of Yanati family or were in possession in any capacity as such even on the relevant date for the purpose of determination of holding under land ceiling proceedings. It has been pointed out that even on a reading of the orders under Ex.A-38 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, either in pursuance of C.C. Nos. 2211/75 or 4/79 or even later order Ex.A-38 dated 2-1-1987, on a review filed at the instance of third party in Ex.A-37 that the acquired lands are forming part of the subject matter of the said enquiry. The entire approach made by the Court below is only on the basis that originally the total extent of the land of the same survey number was larger in its extent and the Yanati family has already a share therein which is only to the extent of half and not beyond. However, it is not the case of the Government that the land, which has been claimed by the claimants herein and which has been acquired was forming part of the enquiry under land reform proceedings either under Ex.A-38 or as evident in Ex.B-1 in L.R.A.2 of 1987 filed by the Government. It has been categorical case of the claimants as spoken to by P.W.4 that their vendors are not Yanati family nor the lands acquired at any point of time belong to Yanati family. Their vendors are totally different ryots and their purchase is under registered sale deeds as pointed out above and admittedly they have been in possession all along. Merely because some proceedings are pending under the land reforms in declarations filed by Yanati family, it cannot be said that there is any dispute as such in regard to the acquired land or any claim is forthcoming on behalf of either the Government or any third party as such. In the absence of any such claim as to right, title or interest whatsoever in nature in respect of the acquired land, it cannot be said that there exists any dispute which requires to be decided on a reference as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Merely because some proceedings are pending, it would not in any way affect any rights of the claimants in respect of the acquired lands.
13. The case of the appellants in both the First Appeals is that their extents of lands under this LA proceedings do not form part of the lands belonging to Yanati Venugopal Reddy or Yanati Rajarami Reddy and that they are not covered by the lands declared or suppressed by Yanati Venugopal Reddy or Yanati Rajarami Reddy in their declarations under the A.P. Land Reforms Act, 1973. That as per the registered partition deed of Yanati family dated 19-1 -1955, one block of land of Ac.557-70 cents i.e., Ac.278-85 cents belong to other landowners whose lands are not affected by the agricultural land ceiling proceedings and that the appellants had purchased the suit lands from these landowners. The said Yanati Venugopal Reddy had first filed a declaration under the land ceiling law in C.C. No. 2211/NLR/75 and had later filed a second declaration in C.C. No. 4/NLR/79, totally declaring an extent of Ac.200-85 cents and had suppressed an extent of Ac.78-00 cents and sold it to third parties, out of the total extent of Ac.278-85 cents held by him in Painampuram village. The clearance certificate issued by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms) dated 30-6-1995 wherein it was specifically stated by the Revenue Authorities that the lands held by the appellants are not covered by the land ceiling cases of both Yanati Rajarami Reddy the declarant in C.C. No. 2212/NLR/75 and Yanati Venugopal Reddy the declarant in CC. No. 2211/NLR/75 and CC No. 4/NLR/79 and that the appellants lands do not come under the purview of the A.P. Land Reforms Act, 1973. That the appellants had further filed a unsigned copy of a letter dated 31-7-1995 marked as Ex.A-44 issued by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms, Nellore to the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Krishnapatnam Thermal Power Station, Nellore with regard to clarifications on certain lands for payment of land acquisition compensation together with a statement showing the details of lands held by Yanati Venugopal Reddy as per partition document No. 35/1995 dated 19-1-1995 but as the Court below did not rely on this unsigned copy and all the efforts of the appellants to summon the original from the Collectorate, Nellore proved futile. That the land reform authorities later in another O.P. No. 95/95 in the year 2002 had filed the above documents before the Court below and as such the appellants herein had obtained certified copies of the same and filed the min CMP No. 416 1 of 2003 in A.S. No. 1467 of 1999 to receive additional documents and the same was allowed and marked as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. No. Date Description of the Document Ex. No.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 14-2-2002 Letter of the RDO, Nellore A-49 addressed to Senior Civil Judge, Nellore 2 30-6-1995 Clearance Certificate issued by A-50 the Additional Revenue Divil. Officer (Land Reforms) to the Special Tahsildar, L.A 3 31-7-1995 Clarification issued by the Additional A-51 Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms) to the Special Tahsildar, L.A. together with enclosed statement.
4 19-8-1995 Clarification sent by the Addl. Revenue A-52 Divil. Officer (Land Reforms) to the Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. It is clear from Ex.A-51 that Yanati Venugopal Reddy and Yanati Rajarami Reddy had filed declarations in the year 1975 and 1979 and in the said declarations they had suppressed some of the properties held by them and sold the same to the third parties. It is also evident from the aforesaid letter together with the statement annexed to it, that the extent covered by these proceedings (Lands belonging to the appellants) before this Court are not part of either the original declarations or revised declarations or suppressed extents of the Yanati family. Thus, it is clear that the lands covered by these appeals has nothing to do with Yanati family and as such the outcome of the appeal in Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in LRA 2/87 with regard to the lands held by the Yanati family will have no bearing on the acquisition proceedings of the appellants herein. That is the reason why the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer in his Rc.B. No. 2/95 dated 30-6-1995 and marked as Ex.A-50 gave clearance certificate over an extent of Ac.17-00 cents, which covers the extents of the appellants herein. Ignoring all this, the L.A.O. had chosen to refer the case to civil Court under Section 30 of the LA Act. When admittedly the land covered by these notifications is not part of extent held by Yanati family, the question of any title dispute does not arise as no third party had claimed any adverse title or interest in or over the property. Thus, there is no reason to hold that the claimants had no title to the property. Thus denial of compensation to the claimants covered by the clearance certificate issued by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer is not correct.
15. Further, as already held, pendency of land reform case, would not amount to a dispute to warrant invocation of Section 30 or 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Above all, the Court below totally exceeded its reference, by going into title of the claimants, when there is no rival claim or dispute as such from any party.
16. Hence, in the above circumstances, it has to be held that there exists no dispute in regard to title of the appellants and they are entitled to the compensation amount as already determined.
17. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed with costs.