Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 36 (TS)

Kamsa Bai v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2025-02-06

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Tirumala Devi Eada, J. 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. 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 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 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 1/4 th 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% 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. Ex.A3 does not aid respondent Nos.11 and 12 in any way to prove their title. 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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. l) In Union of India v. A.Ajit Singh , [(1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 50] , the Apex Court dealt with the apportionment of compensation between the landlord and the tenant. 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. l) In Union of India v. A.Ajit Singh , [(1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 50] , 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 , [ (1996) 8 SCC 664 ] , Inder Parshad v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 239 and Col.Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal , [ (1994) 4 SCC 523 ] , 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. 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. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.