Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 310 (AP)

Yemireddy Sunder Reddy v. B. Yadagiri Reddy

2013-04-23

N.RAVI SHANKAR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. When the stay petition and vacate stay petition came up for hearing, both sides argued the revision itself and that is how it is taken up for disposal. 2. The circumstance in which this revision came to be filed and the order that is questioned should be noted to decide the controversy that is raised in it and they can be stated thus. 3. The petitioner herein is one Sri B. Yadagiri Reddy. He filed a suit OS No.13 of 2013 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool for declaration of his title to certain extents of lands shown in the plaint schedule therein on the plea that they were wrongfully claimed by defendants 1 to 12 therein who are respondents 1 to 12 herein. His case in that suit is that the said lands among other lands were acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act) showing respondents 1 to 12 as owners of the same and that the concerned Land Acquisition Officer also passed an award fixing the compensation and that he is the actual owner that the respondents 1 to 12 claimed them wrongfully and therefore the compensation which was fixed for the said extends to be paid to respondents 1 to 12 belongs to him. He not only sought for declaration of his title to the said land in the above suit, but also sought for a mandatory injunction against defendants 13 to 14 who are the District Collector and Special Deputy Collector concerned to pay the awarded amount to him for the said extents. 4. It is stated that in the said suit he filed an I.A. for interim reliefs to defendants 13 to 14 not to disburse the amounts to respondents 1 to 12 till the disposal of the suit, but notice were ordered by the trial Court and that application is pending at that stage. 5. While the matters stood thus, it must be stated here that the land owners concerned including respondents 1 to 12 sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act even before the petitioner files his suit and that reference was made to the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool in OP No.17 of 2011 on its file. 5. While the matters stood thus, it must be stated here that the land owners concerned including respondents 1 to 12 sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act even before the petitioner files his suit and that reference was made to the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool in OP No.17 of 2011 on its file. The said O.P. was disposed of later and compensation was also deposited in the said Court for disbursement to respondents 1 to 12 and other land owners. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 12 moved cheque petitions before the learned Senior Civil Judge. 6. It was at the above stage the petitioner filed an I.A. before the Senior Civil Judge for stopping payment of amounts to respondents 1 to 12 on the ground that his above suit is pending and the interim orders are awaited in the I.As. The learned Senior Civil Judge at the S.R. stage of that application by his order dated 4.3.2013 returned that application saying in substance that the reference before him is only under Section 18 of the Act and the petitioner did not participate at any stage in the land acquisition proceedings and unless the petitioner established his claim to the land in question in a proper forum and obtains an order, he cannot entertain that application. It is questioning that order the petitioner has come up with the present revision. 7. Sir K. Srinivas, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length about the merits of the petitioner’s claim in his suit and that having regard to its pendency he argued that the learned Senior Civil Judge was not correct in returning petitioner’s application and he says that nothing prevents the petitioner from approaching the Court of Senior Civil Judge for the above relief for protection of his money as his suit is already pending. He could not cite any decision or any provision in the Act to show that his above application which was returned by the learned Senior Civil Judge is maintainable 8. It may be noted that in this case it is brought to my notice that the lands concerned have been acquired by the Government after duly followings the issuance of notification required to be issued under the Act and the Collector concerned has also passed the awards and the possession was also taken over in accordance with the procedure prescribe by the Act. Section 12 of the Act says that once the award is passed, that award is final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the person interested whether they have appeared before the Collector or not or the true area of the and the value of the land and the apportionment of the compensation among the person interested. Then Section 16 says that once an award is made under Section 11 and possession taken the land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. It should also be noted that subsequent reference under a Section 18 or 30 of the Act are only follow up action regarding enhancement of compensation or apportionment. The petitioner did not on his own pleadings participate at any stage in the above proceeding under the Act. 9. It was only subsequently after the entire proceedings were over and compensation was deposited in the Court of Senior Civil Judge the petitioner came up with the above suit. Thus it can be said that by that stage the land has already vested in the Government and the award became final as between the parties to it. In such a situation, the petitioner has to work out his remedies independently and he cannot approach the reference Court i.e., the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool for redressal of his grievance if any and he has to work out his remedies in separate proceedings against the Government or those who may have received the compensation. Whether his claim can be uphled or not may have thus to be decided in those separate and appropriate proceedings. The learned Counsel for the petitioner except relying upon certain supposed merits of the petitioner’s claim in his suit, which is yet to be decided, presented a very vehement argument for revising the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge. That argument cannot be said to be a tenable one in the above circumstance. 10. Accordingly, it follows that the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for interference by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed and the interim stay granted earlier is vacated. The other miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. No costs.