K. Lakshman, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section - 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by aforesaid claimants in O.P.No.30 of 1986 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2001 passed therein.

2. Originally the land admeasuring Acs.571.35 guntas of Malkajgiri, Meerpet and Nacharam Villages of Hyderabad East was acquired by the Government for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Development Area for large sale industries.

3. As far as the lands covered under the present appeal is to an extent of Acs.183.25 guntas in Survey Nos.43 to 48 and 51 to 54 of Nacharam Village. In this case, a Notification under Section - 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act, 1894’) was published in the Gazettee on 14.05.1964 and draft declaration under Section - 6 of the Act, 1894 on 16.06.1964. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted and passed an Award on 08.11.1965 fixing the market value @ Rs.250/- per acre. Thereafter, one Laxmamma and others approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P. No.565 of 1970 seeking a direction to the LAO to hold an inquiry in accordance with the Provisions of the Act, 1894 on the ground that they were not served with notices under Section - 9 of the Act, 1894 and did not take part in the proceedings before the LAO. Vide order dated 13.10.1971, this Court allowed the said W.P. directing the L.A.O. to reopen the proceedings and to proceed afresh from the stage of issue of notices under Section - 9 of the Act, 1894.

4. Pursuant to the said order dated 13.10.1971, the LAO conducted inquiry afresh by serving notices on all the parties including the writ petitioners and passed the award on 31.12.1979 afresh, fixing the aforesaid amount i.e., Rs.250/- per acre. However, the LAO observed that Survey Nos.43 to 48 and 51 to 54 of Nacharam Village is recorded in the name of Villagers (‘Kulriyaya’) and several claimants were appeared claiming title over the aforesaid land during award inquiry. There are no specific recorded owners for the said lands under acquisition. The claimants failed to produce any evidence to prove their ownership. The possession of all survey numbers were taken over through concerned Revenue Inspector on 25.02.1965. It is not possible to pass an award in favour ‘Kulriyaya’ in respect of the village population as a body. Therefore, the LAO referred the matter to the City Civil Court under Section - 30 read with Section - 31 of the Act, 1894.

5. Pursuant to the reference under Sections - 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894, the same was numbered as O.P. No.306 of 1980 by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Later the said O.P. was transferred to the District Court, Rangareddy District and it was numbered as O.P. No.586 of 1982 on the file of Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District. Again the said O.P. was transferred to the Principal Subordinate Court, Rangareddy District and numbered it as O.P. No.30 of 1986 and thereafter the same was transferred to the Reference Court.

6. In the claim petitions, the claimants contended that they had been enjoying the possession of the land bearing Survey Nos.43 to 48 and 51 to 54 to an extent of Acs.184.20 guntas known as “Patta Kul Reyaya”, situated at Nacharam village, along with other claimant Nos.2 to 13, 16 to 38, 40 and 41, by paying land revenue to the Government. Therefore, they being the possessors and occupants of the said land, are entitled for the compensation awarded by the LAO.

7. After hearing both sides, vide order dated 15.06.2001, learned Reference Court dismissed the aforesaid O.P. holding that none of the claimants are entitled to the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land and the same should be credited to the Government on the ground that the claimants failed to show that pattas were granted to them by the Nizam or that they were n possession of the acquired land by the date of Abolition of Jagirs in 1949.

8. Challenging the said order, the claimants preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard Mrs. Yogita Prakash, learned counsel representing Mr. V. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing on behalf of LAO.

10. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants herein are in possession of the land in question prior to 1959 and paying the land revenue to the then Government. The Nizam Government had given the said land to the appellants and their predecessors and they were in possession of the same as owners. The government is not claiming any compensation for the acquired lands. Even other claimants did not choose to adduce any evidence against them. Therefore, in the absence of any contra evidence, the appellants are entitled for the compensation. The finding of the Reference Court that the pahani patriks do not show the appellants are the owners is incorrect for the reason when admittedly the then Government granted the land to them, no occasion arose for them to apply for mutation in their names in revenue records.

11. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing on behalf of the LAO would contend that the names of the appellants were not appeared in revenue records. The appellants failed to produce any document to show that they are the owners of the respective extents of the aforesaid land. In fact, in Sethwar, the lands under acquisition were recorded patta in the name of ‘Kulriyaya’ i.e., all villagers. Therefore, it was not possible to pass award in favour of all village population. Having considered all the aspects only, the LAO referred the matter to the Civil Court under Sections - 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894. Since the appellants failed to prove their ownership over the acquired land, they are not entitled for any compensation. As such, he sought to dismiss the appeal.

12. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the following points that arise for consideration:

               (i) Whether the appellants are entitled for compensation awarded by the LAO for the acquired land?

               (ii)Whether the order and decree passed by learned Reference Court is correct in accordance with law?

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the material on record.

14. Perusal of record would show that before the Reference Court, PW.1 examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No evidence, both oral and documentary, was let in on behalf of the LAO. Exs.A1 to A8 are the land revenue receipts, while Ex.A9 is the pahani for the year 1961.

15. PW.1 is Yerram Malla Reddy, who is the legal heir of claimant No.2 in the aforesaid O.P. He deposed that they are the owners of the land to the extent of Acs.184.20 guntas in Survey Nos.43 to 48 and 51 of Nacharam Village. The land is known as Kunrai patta. The Government acquired the said land in 1967 and took the possession from them. He also paid the land revenue. The land revenue receipts are Exs.A1 to A8. The pahani for the year 1961 is Ex.A9. The other claimants have no title or ownership on the suit lands. They are in possession of the properties earlier to 1959. Therefore, they are entitled for compensation. The land acquired by the Government to construct the houses. Cross-examination of PW.1 was reported by the LAO.

16. In view of the above, it is not in dispute that the Government acquired the land to an extent of Acs.183.23 gutnas of Nacharam Village for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Development Area (For Large Scale Industries) apart from other lands. Pursuant to the Notifications issued under the Act, 1894, the LAO conducted Award Inquiry by giving opportunity to all the parties including the appellants herein. Thereafter, the LAO has passed an Award on 31.12.1979 in File No.B/1487/78, fixing the market value @ Rs.250/- per acre and other components. The LAO found that the acquired land was recorded patta in the name of ‘Kulriyaya’ i.e., all Villagers, it is not possible to pass an award in favour of all the village population and, therefore, he referred the matter to the Civil Court under Sections - 30 and 31 of Act, 1894.

17. The appellants herein are claimant Nos.1 to 13, 15 to 38, 40, 41, 103 and 107. The contention of the appellants is that they had been enjoying the possession of the land in Survey Nos.43 to 48 and 51 to 54 as patta ‘Kul’ ‘Riyaya’ situated at Nacharam Village by paying land revenue to the Government. Therefore, they being the possessors and occupants of the acquired land, they are entitled for compensation awarded by the LAO. Except examining claimant No.2 as PW.1, other claimants were not examined to prove their ownership/ possessorship over the acquired land. Exs.A1 to A8 filed by the appellants do not confer any right over the acquired land as they do not reflect their names and extents etc. Ex.A9 does not show the names of appellants, and as it is in respect of the land in Survey Nos.48 to 53 and 56 to 59 being shown as ‘Kul Riyaya’. Therefore, the said documents do not help the case of the appellants to claim any right in respect of the acquired lands. Moreover, they have not placed any other evidence to prove their right over the acquired land.

18. In a reference under Sections - 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894, the burden is on the person claiming compensation to establish his legal entitlement. Mere assertion of ownership and possession is insufficient. The claimants must prove title and possession by producing cogent documentary or other admissible evidence. The LAO referred the matter to the Civil Court because there was a dispute regarding entitlement to receive compensation in terms of Sections – 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894. The learned Reference Court is required to determine who is legally entitled to the compensation and cannot presume ownership in favour of the claimants and their possession over the subject property. In the case on hand, the appellants herein failed to produce registered sale deeds, partition deeds, gift deeds, succession documents, or any other documents establishing ownership over the acquired land, or at least their possession. In the absence of such evidence, they cannot claim compensation merely because land has been acquired. As stated above, the documents marked as exhibits do not contain the names of the appellants herein as against the survey numbers of the acquired land; or any correlation with the land covered by the acquisition notification. Consequently, the documents have no evidentiary value in proving ownership. If no revenue record, such as Record of Rights, pattadar passbooks, mutation entries, adangals, pahani, or other revenue records stand in the names of the appellants, the claim of ownership becomes doubtful. Even otherwise, revenue entries alone do not confer title unless supported by valid title documents. The appellants also failed to adduce convincing oral evidence proving possession, succession, or ownership.

19. It is well settled law that oral evidence without supporting documentary evidence is insufficient where title is disputed. Since ownership was disputed and not established before the LAO, the correctly invoked Sections - 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894, by depositing the compensation in the Court instead of releasing it to any claimant. The learned Reference Court examined all exhibits and recorded a categorical finding that the appellants - claimants herein failed to prove their ownership and even the possession over the acquired land and, therefore, they are not entitled to seek any compensation. This finding of the learned Reference Court is based on evidence and is neither perverse nor unsupported by the record. This Court being appellate Court ordinarily does not interfere with findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. Compensation under the Act, 1894 is payable only to the person who establishes a legal interest in the acquired property. In the absence of proof of ownership or any other legally recognized interest, the appellants herein have no enforceable right to receive the compensation.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellants herein failed to discharge the burden of proving ownership; the exhibits relied upon do not mention either their names; there is no documentary or oral evidence linking them to the acquired property. The learned Reference Court correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly held that the claimants are not entitled to the compensation deposited by the LAO under Sections - 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894. Further, learned Reference Court has rightly ordered to credit the deposited amount to the Government. Thus, the order under appeal is a reasoned order and does not interfere with the judgment by this Court. Hence, the present appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

21. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed, confirming the order dated 15.06.2001 in O.P. No.30 of 1986 passed by learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.