The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of payment of the compensation amount to the respondents 2 to 10 and '12 herein for the acquisition of the land total to an extent of Ac.8.0'1 gts in Sy.No. 1216/126 and 12171128 situated at Pippaldhari Viltage, Aditabad Mandal and District for the purpose of construction of irrigation tank, in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No 11 of 2007, dated 3-3-2009 on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, at Adilabad pending disposal of the main case in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellants Sri S Surender Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No 'l GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent No 2 to 10 Sri N Mukunda Reddy Ravi Counsel for the Respondent No 12 Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi The Court delivered the following Judgment: I I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.3L2 of 2OO9 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tintmala Deui Eado) 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 2OO7 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 atd 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 1O and 12.

3. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court' 2 AKS,' & ETD,J I-AAS No,312 2009

4. The far:ts of the case in brief are that the matter was referred to the tria-l Court by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 30 oi the Act to decide the title in respect of the iand acquired in Survey No.1O/A extending to Ac.02-00 guntas and in survey No.12 l6/126 and 12/7/128 to an extent of Ac.OS-O1 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 pa ttadars and possessors of survey No.10/A admeasuring Ac.O2-OO guntas, situated at Pippaldhari Vjllage, survey No.1216 corresponding to 121126 admeasuring Ac. l5- OO guntas out ol which Ac.O4-15 guntas was acquired arrd 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 Iiled a claim r;tatement stating that respondent Nos. I 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. i to 9. Respondent Nos. i 1 and 72 have liled petitions submitting thr]t they are the owners, pattadars arld possessors 7 3 AKS,,J & ETO,J IAAS No.312 2009 of the land in survey No.12/6 at present 12/126 and 12 ll29 and it is also ca,lled as 12 I 6 I 126 and 12 17 I 128 to an extent of Ac.1O-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 vear 1957 from Nayeemullah Khan S/o.Abdu1 Rahman Khan and that through him they came into possession over the acquired land. Respondent No.13 has not filed any ciaim 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: I 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 ar,d 12l7 I 128 extending 8-01 gunta?

3. Whether Rl3 is the daughter of Are Babanna and whether she is entitled to | /4,a share in the compensation amount?"

6. Before the trial Court, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.Al to A3 were marked. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has passed the award gralting 6)yo 4 AKS,,} & ETD,I LAqS No.312-2009 compensation to respondent Nos. 11 to 13, 4O7o compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 9, I / 4tt, share out of the 6O7o is allotted to respondent No.13, while the claim made by respondent No. 10 was clismissed. 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. I I 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 arg:ed that the appellants father Are Babanna has purchased the land to an extent of Ac.lO-00 guntas in survey No. 12/16 (old) at present Survey Nos.12/126 and 12/128 and that it is also called as 7216/126 and 1217ll28 situated at Pappaldhari Village, Adilabad Mandal and District from one Nayeemullah Khan S/o.Abdui Rahman Khan in the year 1957 and that respondent ------.-7 // 5 AKs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312 2009 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 tria-l 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.l 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 tria-l 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. l I 6 A(S,] & ETD,J LAAS No.312 2009

10. Cor-rsidering the above facts, the following points arise for consider;ltion: 1 2 Whether the respondent Nos.1 to 14 are entitled to any compensation. If so, to what extent? Whether the trial Court's order and decree need any interference?

3. To what relieP

11. PO INT NO.1: a) A perusal of the entire record throws light on an undispuled 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 Divisionalofficerandtheappellantshereinhavenotliledany documerrt to prove their title. Respondent No' 1 who was examined as PW 1 before the trial Court has stated that Are Babanna $,as cultivating the land. Ex'Al is the Pahani relied upon by the claimant Nos. 11 and 12. b) A perursal of Ex.Al 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 nqt confer any title. But for this document, the claimant -) 7 AXS,J & ETD,J I-AAS No.312_2009 Nos.l1 and 12 have not filed any document in support of their contention that they are the owrlers of the acquired tand. c) Ex.A2 is the copy of the orders ol Special Deputy Collector dated 13.02.2001. It is elicited from the said exhibit that respondent No.1 was the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 1 and 12 were the respondents and the Special Deputy Collector has heid 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 Reguiation, 1959 (for short "A.P.S.A.L.T.R, 19S9"). A perusal of Ex.A3 which happens to be the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings No.L/63 19/78 Case No.32, dated 24.09.1981 wherein the father ofrespondent Nos.11 and 72 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. 12l 17, situated at Pippaldhari Village of Adilabad Taluk. 8 A(S,I & €TD,J LAAS No.312 2009 Ex.A3 does not aid respondent Nos. I 1 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 1and. It is a-lso admitted by the respondent Nos. I 1 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.l to 9. Considering the above said facts, it is held that respondent Nos.l to 9 are the pattada-rs and Are Babanna is the occupier. e) Another dispute raised before the tria-l 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 rvife of Are Babanna. It is further elicited from her that her mother died while she was around 10 years old \ A 9 AKS,I & EID,I I AAS No.312 2009 and that after the death of her mother' Are Babanna married PW3 and through her' respondent Nos'll ald 12 were born' The said evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs5and6.PW5isAreLasmanna.Throughhisevidence,it is elicited that Are Babanna is his Senior Paternal Uncle and that Lasumabai was the hrst 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,itisheldthatrespondentNo.13isthe daughter of Are Babanna and is entitled to a share in the compensation. Therefore' based on Ex'Al' 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' 1 1 to 13 are entitled to a share in the compensation' It is further held that respondent Nos.ltogwhoaretheSonsofpattadar/NayeemullahKhanare 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 10 AKS,I & EID,J LAAS No,312 2009 dismissed the claim against her. There is no challenge on the said aspect before this Court. Now the appellants are aggrieved that they were not given f) the entire compensation but a share vt'as 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 arld submitted all the documents showing their ownership and title and that they proved their title. But the record discloses that they only filed Exs.Al to A3 rvhich 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.A 1 and the oral evidence on reiord, 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 deat-h of Nayeemullah Khan the matter was brought by h\q "o., before the Special Deputy Collector (TW) Utnoor and 11 AI(5,J & ETD,] LAAs No.312 2009 that aJter considering the entire evidence on record, the judgment was passed in favour of the appellants vide CASC No.TWA2 /88 t / 96 and Tw A2 I 882 / 96 dated I 3.O2.2O0 | (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 cha-llenged 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 I{han 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 Trarsfer Regulation, 1959. Further, considering the said orders under Ex.A2, even if the said agreement of sa-le 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 ald that they have not taken any steps to mutate the property in their name I I I 12 AKs,,' & €TDJ LAAS No.312 2009 ( j) Learne,l 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 lega-l heirs of pattadars while respondent Nos.1 1 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 lollowed while fixing the compensation among the pattadars and possessors. \ 13 AKS,] & ETD,j LAAS No.312_2009 1) In Union oJ India u. A.Ajit Singhl, 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 1n Mangat Ram o. Sto;te of Haryana2, Inder Parsha.d a. Union of Indias and Cot.Sir Harinder Slngh Brar Bans Bahadur u. Bihari Lal4, 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 Corlrt to grart apportionment of the compensation in the ratio of 6Ooh to the tenant and 4ooh to the landlord to be a reasonable ratio. m) It is already held 1n the preceding paragraph that the heirs of Nayeemullah Khan are the pattadars and the heirs of , I 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 4Oo/o to pattadars and 6O% to possessors is held to be justified and appropriate to meet the ends ofjustice. 1(19971 6 Supreme Court Cases 50 ' 1rsso1 a scc ooa ' 1tssa1 s scc z3s o lrssay a scc sz: -l I 14 t AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.312-2009

12. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point No' f it is hetd that the tria-l court's order and decree do not need any interference a:rd hence, the same are upheld'

13. POINT NO.3: In the resuit, this appeal is dismissed upholding the order anddecreedated03.o3.2oogpassedino'P.No.11of2007by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad' No costs' Miscellaneous Petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed. I,TRUE COPYI' Dil I ,,1i{,t$IiHht / gEclloN oFFlcER \ To, lll" o''"'unn"n" 1 rhe senior ::l :i[ il:::":'::':i:::':i;: 'z l}3"?'ctt.:itoi'n -.r^. Reddy, Advocate toPucl a One CC to Sri S Surenc ; ;"" cc ro Ir ^:::::Ij:ff:jX:'^:::::::::":i' 5 One CC to Sri N MuKu' 6. Two CD CoPres VPJSh g I I j I HIGH COURT DATED:06102't2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE LAAS.No.312 of 2009 $E S'IA $5 rr\[R M ;. (i ) c o \ (2 DRAFTS ) DISMISSING ]THE LAAS :.! el'n %ft I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S. NO: 312 OF 2009 Between:

1. Kamsa Bai, Wo. Deva Reddy, Age 46 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Bhagyanagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District

2. Kamalabai, Wo. Hanmandlu, Age 44 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Pippaldhari Village, Adilabad Mandal and District '1 . The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad AND ...Appellants / Respondent' 11 & 12 ...Respondent / Referring Officer

2. Atheshamullah Khan, S/o. Nayeemulla Khan, age major, Occ- Lorry Driver R/o, Ambedkarpagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District

3. Kaisurullah Khan, Sio. Nayeemulla Khan, age major, Occ. Fruit Vendor R/o. Ambedkarnagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District

4. [\ilumtaz Begum, Wo. Raifullah Khan, age major, Occ. Housewife R/o. Ambedkarnagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District

5. Ruksana Begum, Wo. Sartaz Ahmed, age major, Occ. Housewife R/o, Ambedkarnagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

6. F arzana Begum, W/o. Alauddin, age major, Occ- Housewife R/o. Ambedkarnagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District

7. lrfana Begum, Wo. Shair Khan, age major, Occ. Housewife R/o. Ambedkarnagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District B. Jabeena Begum, Wo. Syed lvluzafar, age major, Occ. Housewife R/o. Ambedkarnagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District

9. Durdana Begum, age major Rlo.2-2-23Oh, Ambedkarnagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District

10. Hansara Begum, Wo. Yousafali, age major, Occ. Housewife R/o. Ambedkarnagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District

11. Bangari Ramulu, S/o. lvlallanna, age major, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Pippaldhari Village, Adilabad tt/andal and District t 7/ 12 Sadula. Hanrra Bar, W/o. Late Devanna, Age 47 years, Occ. Housewife R/o tselluri Village. Adilabad District .B?da Adellu, S/o -Rajanna, agg major, Occ. Agriculture R/o. pippaldhari Vrllage. Adilal)ad l\rlandal and District ...Respondents / Respondents 1 to 10, 13 & 14 Appeal under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 03-03-2009 made in o.p No.1 1 ot 2oo7 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge at Aditabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing lhe arguments of Sri s surender Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of GP for Appeals, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 ; of sri N Mukunda Reddy Ravi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 to -10, of sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, Adv,rcate for the Respondent No.12. This Court doth Order and decree as follows:- 1 . That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That the order and decree dated 03-03-2009 passed in o.p.No.i.l of 20o7 by the learned sdnior civir Judge at Adirabad be and hereby is uphorded; and 3, That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; Sd/- M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR I Seclor,r OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad 2 Two CD Copies 4 i HIGH COURT DATED:06102t2025 DECREE LAAS.No.312 ot 2009 DISMISSING THE LAAS @cr$ W