Pottello @ Gonthuka Ramulu S/o Late P.Veeraiah v. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Cum

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refer the case/claim of the petitioner to the civil court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for deciding the claim of the petitioner pursuant to his claim/objection petition dated 30-07-2012 in inrespect of the land acquired an extent of Ac.2.38 guntas in Sy. No. 432 of Kandi village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District and covered by letter No.C11959/2012 on the file of the respondent. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. N O: 35909 OF 2013) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c 'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou r may be pleased to directing the respondent not to disburse the compensation e.nount in respect of the land acquired an extent of Ac 2.28 guntas in Sy.No. I ,2 of Kandi Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Ivledak district and covered by letter I to. Cl 195912012 on the file of the respondent, pending disposal of the above writ retition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SUDARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR LAND ACQtilSlTlON Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms. MUNGI SARASWAI l- | REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER )-' HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28916 of 2013 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:- '...directing the respondent to refer the case/ claim of the petitioner to the ciuil court under Section 30 of the Larud Acquisition Act for deciding the claim of the petitioner pursuant to his cLaim/ objectioru petition dated 30.07.2012 in respect of the land acquired an ertent of Ac.2-38 guntas in Sg.No.432 of Kandi uillage, Sangareddg Manda| Medak Distict and couered by letter No.C1/ 959/ 2012 on the fiIe of the respondent..."

2. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioner is the son of one Late Pottela Veeraiah and Radhamma and that during the lifetime of his mother i.e., the said Radhamma, petitioner's father illegally married one Nagamma as second wife, during the subsistence of f-rrst marriage with petitioner's mother. Due to the said act of petitioner's father, petitioner's mother suffered mental shock, pain and died when the petitioner was minor. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken care by his maternal grandmother ald accordingly, petitioner secured job as Attender in GHMC at patancheru. It is submitted that petitioner's father got agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.2-28 gts., in Sy.No.432; Ac'O-2O gts', in Sy.No.656; Ac.0-0 1 gts., in Sy.No.49; Ac.O-07 gts', in Sy'No'81; 2 Ac.0-02 lz gts., in Sy.No.i15, total admeasru ng Ac.3_1g % gts', at Kandi village, Sanga Reddy Mandai, -. Ie<ral< District. The said property was ancestral property arr(l 1 tal. petitioner,s father died on 18.10.2005. After the deatl of petitioner,s father, the second u,ife of petitioner,s father. m trr itcd the entire lands in her name illegally in revenue recor:ls. l-he main grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner is deprived .,vith his portion c,f land which he is entitled to.

3. It is further submitted that the Governrn .nL of.Andhra Pradesh acquired land in Sy.No.432 admeasur.rL.r 1 Ac.i2 2g gts., for construction of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricu t rrt: LJniy6lsily out of the abovementioned properties but rr_r rl e ltotification the name of second wife of petitioner,s father rrl rne appeared. As such, petitioner filed objection petition da e I 30.07.2012 before respondent authority during award entlr rirv. It is the case of the petitioner that one p.Mallaiah has alr;r filed another ciaim petitiolr and the respondent authorities r;sLred notices dated 02.08.,2O12 and Og.1O.2Ol2 calling upon , ll the parties to participate in the enquiry for deciding the c.lr ms. The sajd proceedings are kept pending by the responde.l rulr.rcrities. It is further submitted that respondent authorrli, s zrr,: under 3 1egal obiigation to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 3O of the Land Acquisition Act. Though the petitioner approached respondent authorities for referring the matter to Civil Court, but in vain and that in the meantime, if the compensation amount is disbursed, the petitioner wili be put to irreparable loss. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. This Court in W.P.M.P.No.35909 of 2013 on 05.12.2013 has passed interim order not to disburse the compensation amount. The main grievance of the petitioner is that when there are rival claims between the petitioner ald unofhcial respondent Nos.3 and 4, the respondent authorities ought to have referred the matter to Civil Court under Section 3O of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

5. A counter alfidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 stating that writ petition is not maintainable as it is filed with misrepresentation and in the year 2O12 itself a partition suit in O.S.No.175 of 2012 was filed against respondent No.3 and her daughter on the file of Family Court Judge cum VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak District at 4 -l Salga Reddy and the said suit was dismisscci b1 judgment dated 19.04.2017.It is further submitted thar. .retitioner has suppressed the fact of filing of civil suit in the r,rr. t petiLion and the said fact was also suppressed before the respondent officials. Respondent No.3 further contends tha petitioner is falsely claiming to be son of husband of respon< ent IVo_3 and that respondent No.3 is now age oid woman :Lr d is au,aiting the compensation from the respondent authoritie r.

6. The matter is now in the caption .For Refr:r ral tcr Spccial Mediation Drive (for the Nation),. In that vieu, c 1- the matter, since this Court has already directed respond,:r rt auLhorities not to disburse the compensation amount and the pending suit has already been dismissed, the petitioner i ld unofficial respondent Nos.3 and 4 are at liberty to be pre:;r nt before the respondent authorities and thereafter, it is lelt open to the respondent authorities to refer the matter to t h : civil court under Section 30 of the Lald Acquisition Act, I t 94 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possitrl I under the Special Media.tion Drive. It is made clear that th s Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits e K cnts of- the property. 7 To, 5 7 . Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/.P. PONNA KRI A ISTANT R A R TRA //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER Revenue Divisional 1 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) C Officer, Medak District at Sangareddy. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept. (Land Acquisition), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI S.SUDARSHAN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to I\/s. MUNGI SARASWATHI REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. ,/6. Two CD Copies t, BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 0610812025 ) , _ :l-1 -::l:_- v, " .i -.-: i \ ,''.)\ 't. \ r,, I ?t?5 ORDER WP.No.28916 of 2013 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 4 4t 0,/zJ