(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or other writ or order, (a) declaring inaction of 5th Respondent in not passing the Award in favor of the petitioner within twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 19 of Act 30 of 2013 as being illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and in violation of Article 14,19 and 300A of Constitution of India ,violation of the principles of natural justice, violative of Sections 25 and 36 of the Act 30 of 2013 and contrary to the provisions of Act and consequently declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed and set aside the Notifications and Award passed, if any and action of the 10th Respondent (Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition) in passing Award for an extent of Ac 7.33 Cents in Survey No .55-2B , Gudepuvalas Village, Bhogapuram Mandal in the name of 9th Respondent for the land which belongs to the petitioner and after having issued proceedings under Section 11 preliminary notification, Section 19 Declaration and Section 21 in the name of the petitioner and paying the award amount to the 9th Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and high handed and unconstitutional and violative of provisions of 2013 Act and also declare the land acquisition proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac 7.33 cents is also invalid, ineffective and void in view of the provisions of 2013 Act and direct the respondents to redeliver the possession of land admeasuring Ac 7.33 cents in Survey No. 55-2B to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (b) may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that entire land acquisition proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to preliminary notification Rc.No.2314/2015/G3 has lapsed under Section 25 of the Central Act 30 of 2013. (c) may be pleased to declare that the award passed in favor of 9th respondent excluding the petitioner without following principles of natural justice envisaged as arbitrary, illegal and invalid. and pass such other order or orders. Prayer is amended in para no.(a) as per the Court's order dt.22.11.2024 in I.A.no. 02 of 2024.)
1. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of mandamus or other writ or order to declare the inaction of 5th Respondent in passing the Award in favour of the petitioner within twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 19 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as being illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Sections 25 and 36 of the Act 30 of 2013 and contrary to the provisions of Act and consequently to declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings have been lapsed and set aside the Notifications and Award passed, if any, and action of the 10th Respondent (Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition), in passing Award for an extent of Ac.7-33 cents in Survey No.55-2B Gudepuvalasa Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, in the name of 9th Respondent for the land which belongs to the petitioner and after having been issued proceedings under Section 11 preliminary notification, Section 19 Declaration and Section 21, in the name of the petitioner and paying the award amount to the 9th Respondent, is illegal, arbitrary and high handed and unconstitutional and violative of provisions of 2013 Act and also declare the land acquisition proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac. 7-33 cents is also invalid, ineffective and void in view of the provisions of 2013 Act and direct the respondents to redeliver the possession of land admeasuring Ac.7-33 cents, in Survey No.55-2B, to the petitioner and for such other relief as this Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
2. Sri A. Satya Prasad, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Prakash Buddarapu, counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao assisted by Javvaji Sarath Chandra, counsel for the 9th unofficial respondent and the learned Advocate General Sri Dammalapati Srinivas for the State.
3. The writ petitioner is seeking to set aside Award No. 44 of 2016, dated 17.05.2016, on two main grounds: (1) In the present case, the respondents, particularly the 5th respondent, failed to follow the prescribed time limits when passing the award, contravening Sections 11, 12, 13, 19, 21(4), 24, 25, 26(2), and 26 to 30, 36 and 37 of the Act.
4. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 5th respondent issued a Preliminary Notification in Rc.No. 2314/2015/G3 on 31.08.2015 under Section 11 of the Act for acquiring land. The notification included the petitioner’s land, measuring Ac. 7-33 cents in Sy. No.55-2B. Prior to issuing the notification, the respondents were required to conduct a Social Impact Assessment study within six (6) months from the commencement date and submit a report that would be evaluated by an expert group within two months, as stipulated in the Proviso to Section 7(4). Furthermore, objections were to be called for under Section 15, and the District Collector was to conduct an inquiry, allowing the objector an opportunity to be heard. Following this, a declaration was to be published under Section 19 within twelve months. In this case, the petitioner raised her objections on 19.10.2015, while the declaration was made on 02.05.2016, which exceeds the twelve-month timeframe as mandated under Section 19. Additionally, provisions under Sections 21(4) and 22 allowed the petitioner to claim compensation. The petitioner subsequently sent a letter on 04.03.2017 requesting a postponement of the inquiry, indicating that a batch of writ petitions, which included the petitioner’s W.P. No. 33034 of 2015, were pending before the High Court, contesting the notification and the failure to adhere to the mandatory procedures outlined in Sections 12 to 19 of the Act. An award was required to be passed within twelve months from the date of declaration; however, the declaration was published on 02.05.2016 and the award was made on 17.05.2017. Therefore, the 5th respondent failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act in issuing the award, rendering the entire proceedings null and void.
5. The petitioner’s further contention is that under Section 11A of the old Land Acquisition Act 1894, while computing the time period of twenty four months, the time consumed by any stay order in an action or proceeding shall be excluded. However, under Section 25 of Act 30 of 2013, such stipulation that any time taken by a stay order in a legal action be for the purpose of computing time period of twelve months of litigation is no longer considered and to extend the period of twelve months if in the opinion of the government circumstances exist must justify to extend the period and in the present case no gazette was published for extension of the period of 12 months under the proviso to Section 25 of the Act, hence, it is contended that the award dated 17.05.2017 has lapsed.
6. In support of the above contention, the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi and other Vs M.I.D.C., and others((2013) 1 SCC 353). The Apex Court has held that, the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the Rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. And also relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Gosikhurd Project Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs Mahesh((2022) 2 SCC 772), the Apex Court held that “Prescription of the outer limit of twelve months in Section 25 is a calculated dictate, necessary and appropriate given the time, task and effort involved in making an award under the Act 2013.
7. The learned Senior Counsel has cited the following Judgments for the proposition that when no award is passed within twelve (12) months from the declaration under Section 19, the award would lapse under Section 25 of the Act.
(1) The order dated 31.10.2018 in W.P. No. 36924 of 2018 of the Telangana High Court
(2) Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition 12012 of 2015 29.06.2022 for the very same proposition.
(3) Writ Appeal No. 10060 of 2017 of Karnataka High Court at Dharwad Bench.
(4) Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 5049 of 2015 dated 16.02.2016.
8. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and another Vs Union of India and others((2019) 10 SCC 229) in the opinion of this Court the same is not helpful to the present facts of the case and this Court not intended to rely on the judgment.
9. The other contention is that the petitioner was surprised to learn that the 5th respondent issued an award in the name of the 5th respondent. According to the scheme and purpose of the Act, any land acquired for public use should see that fair compensation paid to the landowners as persons interested under definition 3(r) and 3(t) of the Act, for the land being acquired. The Act establishes a process for determining rightful ownership through a procedure laid out in specific sections and for updating revenue records. The procedures outlined in Sections 12, 13, 14, and 21 are intended to ascertain the ownership and interests in the land for the purpose of determining who is entitled to compensation. Once this process is completed by the respondents according to sections 12, 13, 14, and 21, the names of the interested parties and the extent of their interests cannot be added, removed, modified, or changed unless the appropriate government issues orders under section 36, ensuring the propriety or legality of the proceedings governed by Section 11(1) of the preliminary notification or Section 19 regarding declarations, claims, and public notice, as well as specific notifications under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act. The petitioner possesses a statutory right under Section 36 to be heard, with a reasonable opportunity provided before exclusion from the land acquisition process, particularly just prior to the issuance of the award. Once the 5th respondent published a notification under Section 11 including the name of the petitioner and a declaration under Section 19, and after issuing notice under Section 21(4), the respondents are required to issue the award under Section 23 in the name of the petitioner. To exclude the petitioner’s name for any reason, the respondents must provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, and the established procedure must be upheld and the procedure cannot be impaired.
10. The learned Senior Counsel Sri A. Satya Prasad for the petitioner, would draw the attention of this Court to the revenue record filed to establish that the petitioner’s ownership of the property. And further draws the attention of this Court to the possession certificate issue by the Tahsildar, Bhogapuram vide Rc.No.1/2010/dated 20.04.2017. Where the Tahsildar Bhogapuram, has observed in the following:
Based on the Award Enquiry conducted by the enquiry team, records/documents produced by the individuals and report of the Surveyor and Village Revenue Officer concerned that Sri K.V.S.P.Raju @ Narayanamurthy Raju S/o K.L.N.Raju is land owner for the following lands in Gudepuvalasa Village and he/she is entitled to to receive the compensation in connection with acquisition of land for establishment of International Green Field Airport at Boghapuram.
SCHEDULE
| Sy.No. | Extent | Classification |
| 55-2B | 7.33 | Dry |
| 78-1BP | 3.60 | Dry |
| 54-3 | 0.47 | Dry |
| 54-4 | 1.25 | Dry |
| 12.65 |
12. The Tahsildar has not issued the possession certificate basing upon any revenue record as contemplated under law, but rather based it on the statement recorded under Sections 21 to 23 of Act 30 of 2013.
13. Senior Counsel Sri A. Satya Prasad, has argued that the official respondents colluded with the unofficial respondents and paid the compensation to the 9th unofficial respondent, who is neither the owner nor an interested party in the property for the land in Survey Number 55-2B clandestinely inserting survey number 55 and presenting as a consent award. Furthermore, even if the 9th respondent was entitled, an inquiry should have been conducted with a notice issued as required under Section 35 of the Act. The other contention is that to ascertain the ownership, a procedure should be followed under Sections 12, 13, 14, and 21 of the Act, and the government should satisfy itself under Sections 36 and 37(2); as such, the right of the petitioner could be impaired and affected only after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard and not by making an Award in utter disregard to the right of the petitioner without giving an opportunity.
14. Learned Advocate General for the State referred paras 11 and 16 of the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector, Competent Authority I.G.F.A., Bhogapuram on behalf of 5th respondent-District Collector. In para 11, it was asserted that in the award proceedings it was clearly mentioned that Sri KVSP Raju @ Naryanamurthy Raju S/o KLN Raju has submitted land owner certificate given by the Tahsildar as no counter claims were received for the Sy. No.55-2B.
15. At para No. 16, it is asserted that the respondents are unable to pass award within the time as the respondents are inhibited by operation of a stay order. And relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Gosikhurd Project Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra 2) at para No. 41 of it, and the relevant order is extracted hereunder:
In the context of absence of any provision excluding the period of operation of stay orders under Section 24(2), it was noted that the statute cannot provide for all possible scenarios, and it is for the courts to plug the gaps through the process of judicial interpretation by ascertaining the legislative intent. The Court resorts to construe the words of the provision in a reasonable way having regard to the context. Accordingly, it was held that Section 24(2) ousts the period spent during the interim stay, and no fault or inaction could be attributed to the authorities when the payment of compensation or taking possession of land was inhibited by operation of a stay order.
16. And further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of May George Vs Special Tahsildar and other((2010) 10 SCC 98) for the proposition failure of issuance of notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 would not adversely affect the subsequent proceedings including the award and title of the Government in the acquired land. So far as the person interested is concerned, he is entitled to receive the compensation and therefore, there may be a large number of disputes regarding the apportionment of the compensation. In such an eventuality, he may approach the Collector to make a reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Act.
17. It has been voiced that when there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 9th unofficial respondent, the petitioner must approach the Authority under Section 64 of the Act for redressal. It is stated that this Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the dispute concerns title and evidence is required. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
18. Learned Senior Counsel Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, for the 9th unofficial respondent, argues that if the petitioner is aggrieved, petitioner is required to file a civil suit in a competent Civil Court or seek annulment of the award, or has to invoke Section 64 of the Act; thus, a writ petition cannot be maintained in this Court. Furthermore, it is stated that the petitioner has not responded to the notice issued under Section 21(4), and there are no pleadings regarding the flow of title to the subject property. Additionally, there is ambiguity about how and when the petitioner obtained the Pattadar Passbook. There are discrepancies between the Pattadar Passbook and the adangal; the Passbook indicates that the property is ancestral while the adangal from 2014; denotes it as purchased. The writ petitioner has not claimed the property in Writ Petition No. 33034 of 2015. According to the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2013, one Mr. Upplapati Sanyasi Raju is recorded as the owner of the subject property. The Survey Land Register indicates that the 9th respondent, Mr. Kakarlapudi Srinivasa Raju, is noted, and that the Pattadar Passbooks were incorrectly issued in the name of the writ petitioner. The District Collector and the Joint Collector conducted a review with the staff, resulting in a resolution for the Tahsildar to issue Land Owner Certificates to beneficiaries as needed. A survey report was prepared in the presence of the respective farmers, showing the 9th respondent at Sy.No.55-2B. The issuance of the Land Owner Certificate is not being challenged in this writ petition, and statements from respondents recorded under Sections 21 to 23 support a dismissal of the writ petition. To substantiate the arguments raised, several judgments were referenced:
In G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar – AIR 1966 SC 237 – Para No.4 – The Land Acquisition Act discloses a well knit scheme in the matter of making an award. The Land Acquisition Officer, after issuing notice calling for objections, decides on the three matters prescribed in s.11, i.e., the true area of the land, the amount of compensation and the apportionment of the compensation. Before making the apportionment of the compensation he can resort to any of the following three methods; (i) to accept an agreed formula; (ii) to decide forhimself; and (iii) to refer to the Court if he thinks that the decision of the Court is necessary. But once the award is made, it becomes final and it can be reopened only in the manner prescribed, i.e., by wayof a reference under s.18 of the Act. This construction makes for the smooth working of the provisions of the Act and does not lead to any anomalies. It also does not affect the right of the aggrieved parties to proceed in the manner prescribed by the Act for getting the award vacated or modified’, as the case may be. It is said that if this view be accepted, a person who acquires a right after the award by transfer inter vivos or by devolution of interest will be without a remedy. I do not see any difficulty in that regard. Under s.18 he may ask for a reference. He may apply to be brought on record after the reference ismade to the Court. It may also be that he may proceed in a civil Court to recover the compensation from the persons who received’ it on the basis of his title. On the other hand, the contrary view will lead to an incongruous position.
In Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 128 – Para 34- Award made bythe Collector is final and conclusive as between the Collector and the ‘persons interested’, whether they have appeared before the Collector or not, on two issues: (i) as to true area, i.e. measurement of land acquired, (ii) as to value of the land,
i.e. the amount of compensation, and (iii) as to the apportionment of the compensation among the ‘persons interested’ again, between the Collector and the ‘persons interested’ and not as amongst the ‘persons interested’ inter se. In the event of a reference having been sought for u/s 18, the Collector’s award on these issues; if varied by Civil Court, shall stand superseded to that extent. The scheme of the Act does not attach a similar finality to the award of the Collector on the issue as to the person to whom compensation is payable; in spite of the award by Collector and even on failure to seek reference,such issue has been left available to be adjudicated upon by any competent forum.
In Suraj Bhan & Ors. V. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 – Para 9 – It is well settled that an entry in Revenue Records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights. It is settled law that entries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only ‘fiscal purpose’ i.e. payment of land-revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court.
In P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, (2024) 13 SCC 553 – Para 21 to 37 – Mutation in record neither created no extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. More mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land.
In Sawarni (Smt) v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 – Para 7 – Mutation entries do not create or extinguish title, nor have any presumptive value on ownership.
It is respectfully submitted that the mere mention of a person’s name in the preliminary notification issued under RFCTLARR Act is not conclusive proof of title. The name is ordinarily sourced from revenue records and is used only to identify ‘persons interested’ for the limited purpose of issuance of notice and determination of compensation. The Supreme Court has authoritatively held that entries in revenue records or mutation do not confer title and have, at best, a fiscal purpose (Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186; Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223; Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, 2023/24)
19. Consequently, the petitioner cannot rely merely upon the fact that his name appears in the preliminary notification to claim an indefeasible title; the question of title is to be adjudicated independently in appropriate civil proceedings or in a reference under Sections 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act.
20. ANALYSIS OF THIS COURT
The petitioner seeks to set aside Award No. 44 of 2016, dated 17.05.2016, arguing that its issuance violates the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity hereafter called as Act). The grievance stems from the non-compliance with the Act's provisions, specifically the failure to issue a timely declaration under Section 19 (within 12 months of the Section 11 notification) which vitiates the award pursuant to Section 25 of the Act and does not adhere to the respective time limits stipulated under the Act of 2013.
21. ISSUE No. 1: The 1st contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has not followed the time limits as specified in the Act while making the award. It is an admitted fact that subsequent to the notification under Section 11 of the Act 2013, several writ petitions have been filed on different aspects, one is to declare the notification as lapsed on the ground that the ordinance 5 of 2015 was lapsed and the Constitutional validity of A.P. Amendment (Act 22 of 2018) to the Act 30 of 2013 and some other different grounds and erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh has granted interim orders and a Division Bench of this Court has dismissed all the writ petitions and writ appeals arising out of the writ petitions vide order dated 04.11.2022 and all the writ petitions were filed in the year 2015 when the notification was issued under Section 11 of the Act 30 of 2013.
22. The argument of the learned Advocate General is that due to the interim orders granted by the High Court, the government is unable to pass the award in time as the respondents are inhibited by operation of a stay and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Gosikhurd Project Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra 2) it was held that Section 24(2) ousts the period spent during the interim stay, and no fault or inaction could be attributed to the authorities when the payment of compensation or taking possession of land was inhibited by operation of a stay order.
23. Section 24(2) stipulates two conditions that in case the award has been lapsed five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken, or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The Constitution Bench, in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal and Others((2020) 8 SCC 129 (CB)) has clarified that both conditions should be fulfilled before it can be held that the earlier acquisition has lapsed, under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Admittedly physical possession was taken hence the above judgment applies.
24. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri A. Satya Prasad, raised the contention that the award had lapsed due to the failure to follow the time limits stipulated under Act 30 of 2013; however, he did not press this contention significantly. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, and the admitted fact that this Court had granted interim orders, the award does not lapse if that period is excluded. Hence, the award was not lapsed as argued by petitioner’s counsel.
25. ISSUE No. 2:
The second contention is that wrongful disbursement of compensation for the acquired land (Survey No. 55-2B for the Bhogapuram Greenfield Airport). The compensation was paid to the 9th respondent, who is not the rightful owner, contrary to the provisions and intent of the Act. The petitioner, the recorded owner of this agricultural land with coconut plantations (Survey No. 55-2B, Ac.7-33 cents in Gudepuvalasa Village, Bhogapuram Mandal), asserts that the payment was made to the 9th respondent, who holds no title, in collusion with the official respondents, despite the petitioner's name being in the revenue records and the 9th respondent failing to establish any right.
26. The main contention on behalf of the 9th unofficial respondent is that if the petitioner has any grievances, the compensation payment to the 9th unofficial respondent should be addressed through a suit or another alternative remedy, citing the Supreme Court's decision in G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar(AIR 1966 SC 237).
27. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Prakash Agarwal and another Vs. Gopi Krishan (Dead through LR’s)( (2013) 11 SCC 296) referring the judgment of the Apex Court in G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar ( supra 6) held in the following: “In the event that any other person has withdrawn the amount of compensation, the “person interested” if so aggrieved, has right either to resort to the proceedings under the provision of the land acquisition Act, or he may file a suit for the recovery of his share.
28. In this case, the circumstances are entirely different. The 9th respondent has received compensation, even though his name was not included in the notification under Section 11 of Act 30 of 2013, though his title was traced through various means, including succession, survivorship, testamentary or non-testamentary succession or self acquisition.
29. The primordial argument on behalf of 9th unofficial respondent is that the statement recorded under Sections 21 to 23 of Act 30 of 2013, along with the possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, and the Fair Register Adangal (FLR) submitted by the government specifies the name of the 9th unofficial respondent is relevant to claim compensation.
30. Section 20 to 23 postulates that Section 21 - Notice to persons interested and Section 22: Enquiry and hearing regarding to Land owners and Interested persons and Section 23 Enquiry and award by District Collector into objections to land measurements, the value of the land at the date of notification, and the interests of all claimants. Sections 20 to 23, which cover the requirements for notice (Section 21), inquiry / hearing (Section 22), and the District Collector's award (Section 23) concerning objections, measurements, value, and interests, indicate that the statement from the 5th respondent, which has the 9th respondent's signature, is inconsistent with these statutory provisions and this does not declare the right of 9th respondent.
31. Respondent No. 9 must claim compensation on his own, without using 'if's and buts' or circumventing the law. And there is no pleading in either of the counters filed by the official respondent and the 9th respondent that notices were issued under Section 20 to 23, the statement that was made under Sections 21 to 23 is a self-served statement that lacks authentication and does not carry evidentiary value.
32. Furthermore, generally the Land owner certificate will be issued by the Tahsildar based on any revenue records, it was issued following the recommendation of the 5th respondent or the committee. In this case it was issued vice versa. Even the Tahsildar was directed to issue a Land Owner Certificate to the 9th respondent. However, the Collector needs to have a basis for this decision concerning the title of the 9th respondent, and there is no record or evidence to support such a direction. The counters from the respective respondents do not clarify how the 9th respondent obtained the title. The possession certificate suggests it was issued based on the award, without tracing the record to establish his title, whether through testamentary, non-testamentary means, or self-acquisition. Therefore, it also lacks evidentiary value. The 9th respondent relying on the Fair Register Adangal (FLR) filed by the government does not belong to Survey No 55-2B.
33. The 9th unofficial respondent has not identified his ancestor or provided any title deeds or documents to support his claim of ownership. A possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar does not entitle him to compensation without the property being officially registered in his name. In comparison, the petitioner claims title from the person who was admittedly the original owner who was registered as owner in the revenue records. Necessarily, therefore, prima facie it has to be held that petitioner had made out possession following title. The argument that the Pattadar Passbooks were improperly issued in the name of the writ petitioner cannot be sustained.
34. The 5th respondent has included the petitioner’s name in a publication made under Section 11 of the Act, and the petitioner has submitted objections to the notification issued under Section 11. It is acknowledged that a notice under Sections 21 to 23 was issued to the petitioner and these aspects have not been denied in the counters filed by the respective respondents.
35. Parameters were set out under Sections 26 to 30 and the provisions under Chapters IV and V of the Act for payment of compensation and apportionment. The procedure has been deviated from in the present case, and in collusion, the compensation was paid to the 9th unofficial respondent, despite officials having knowledge of the petitioner's name being notified in the Section 11 notification. At no point was any notice issued as contemplated before paying compensation to the 9th respondent, which indicates that the respondents were in collusion with the 9th respondent.
36. It is the further contention on behalf of 9th respondent, there are no pleadings regarding the flow of title to the subject property. Additionally, argued there is ambiguity about how and when the petitioner obtained the Pattadar Passbook.
37. That the petitioner's name had been recorded as the ‘landowner’ in the records of the concerned authority and the title of the petitioner can be traced from the ancestors and the revenue record establishes the same. Based on this, the official respondents included the petitioner's name in the notification issued under Section 11 and subsequently issued notices under Sections 20 to 23, asking the petitioner to attend an enquiry. The petitioner is the landowner of the property as defined under 3(r) of the Act, the relevant part of Section 3(r) which reads: “‘landowner’ includes any person.”,
(i) whose name is recorded as the owner of the land or building or part thereof, in the records of the authority concerned, or
(ii) xxx is omitted
(iii) who is entitled to be granted Patta rights on the land under any law of the State including assigned lands:
(iv) xxx is omitted
38. The 9th respondent must first establish his right over the property and he has to claim on his own. Only then he can he plead that the documents filed by the petitioner are not genuine. In the absence of establishing his own claim, he cannot contend that the petitioner's documents are not genuine, especially since the petitioner was declared a "land owner" under 3(r) and a notification was issued under section 11 of the Act. The 9th respondent does not fall under the category of "land owner.
39. In Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & Anr((2003) 3 SCC 128), the Apex Court held that the Award made by the Collector is final and conclusive between the Collector and the 'persons interested', and it cannot be reopened. As observed by the Apex Court, the petitioner is not seeking to reopen the award to have the collector measure the acquired land, nor is there a dispute for the apportionment among the persons interested inter se. The 9th respondent has failed prima facie to establish their right over the property; hence, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case.
40. For the exposition given above, the issue does not require extensive evidence, nor is this Court declaring a party's title, therefore, it is not a matter that requires the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy. The question involved is whether the 9th respondent able to establish his right over the property.
41. Hence, on the preceding discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the official respondents paid compensation to a person not entitled to receive it. Therefore, the petitioner need not be relegated or directed to pursue any other alternative remedy to claim the compensation. The official respondents are hereby directed to pay compensation to the petitioner herein for the land in Survey No. 55-2B within a period of two months from date of receipt of this order. If any compensation has been paid to a person wrongly who was not entitled to it, the respondents may recover that amount as per the provisions contemplated under the relevant Act; this Court need not issue a specific direction to that extent.
42. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.