ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners, who are represented by a Power of Attorney Holder, pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent herein in passing the award in Proceedings No.B/1040/79 dated 20-7-1993, as illegal and void. The petitioners also pray for issuance of consequential directions directing the respondents herein to pay compensation in accordance with the award dated 25-4-1993 stated to have been passed by the very same 3rd respondent herein.
3. Before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of any relief, it may be appropriate to have a look at the relevent facts.
4. The petitioners claim to be true and absolute owners of agricultural land bearing S. No.48/57 (part of old S. No.44/1) admeasuring Ac 5-34 guntas situated District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said lands’). Admittedly, the said lands were the Government lands even according to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they are landless poor persons, and they occupied the said lands, which is evident from the various proceedings from 1952 onwards. It is stated that the then Tahsildar, by letter dated 19-5-1958 addressed to the 1st petitioner, called upon the petitioners to pay the upset price in respect of the said lands. The petitioners accordingly deposited the upset price through Challan No.148 dated 18-4-1961. It is their case that even the said lands were sub-divided and supplementary Sethwar was issued in favour of the 1st petitioner recognising the assessment made in his name in the year 1960 itself. At any rate, nothing would turn upon these proceedings. There is a serious dispute with regard to the very nature of possession of the petitioners in respect of the said lands. According to the respondents, the documents are manipulated. Even the challan, upon which reliance is placed to show that the petitioners deposited the upset price, is also fabricated.
5. Be that as it may, the said lands along with various extents of lands, were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in the year 1972. But, according to the petitioners, they came to know about the said acquisition only in the year 1979 and they have objected the acquisition. What transpired between 1972 and 1986 is also of no consequence. The fact remains that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was also issued and published in the Gazette on 30-6-1990 invoking emergency provisions under Section 17 and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The substance of the notification in one Telugu and one English Daily was published on 19-8-1990 and 21-8-1990 respectively. (Declaration under Section 6 was also stated to be published in the Gazette on 30-6-1990 along with the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act).
6. According to the petitioners, notices under the petitioners to file their claims, and accordingly, they filed a statement claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.450/- per square yard. It is the case of the petitioners that the Land Acquisition Officer went on postponing the award proceedings without passing any award and they are constrained to file WP No.9965 of 1992 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Officer to act in accordance with law and pass an award. This Court, by an interim order
dated 10-8-1992 passed in WP MP No. 12491 of 1992 in WP No.9965 of 1992, directed the respondents herein to pass an award pursuant to the Notification under Section 4(1) and Declaration under Section 6 published in Gazette dated 30-6-1990 within the statutory period, pending further orders in the miscellaneous petition. According to the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Officer, in pursuance of the interim order of this Court dated 10-8-1992, passed two awards, that is to say, on 25-4-1993 and 20-7-1993. These awards were not communicated to the petitioners under Section 12(2) of the Act. But, a copy of the award dated 20-7-1993 was filed by the respondents along with their counter-affidavit in WP No.9965 of 1992. It is further stated in the affidavit that when the matter was listed for hearing, the Government records were perused by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the said writ petition, and on perusal, it was noticed by the learned Counsel that an award in Proceedings No.B/1040/79 was dictated, pronounced and signed in open Court on 25-4-1993 by the third respondent awarding an amount of Rs.18,29,125/- in favour of the petitioners herein. The said award copy was communicated to the District Collector. The third respondent-Land Acquisition Officer, in his earlier letter dated 18-8-1992, requested the 4th respondent, for whose benefit the land was acquired, to send a cheque for payment of compensation on or before 19-8-1992 so as to enable him to pass the award. The 4th respondent is slated to have acknowledged the said letter and acted upon the same and sent a cheque as desired by the Land Acquisition Officer. Curiously, according to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent, for the reasons, best known to him, has failed to affix his signature on the award. Thereafter, a fresh enquiry was conducted on 21-3-1993, in which the petitioners were examined and an award was passed on 25-4-1993 holding that the petitioners are entitled for compensation. According to the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Officer had given a go-bye to all those proceedings and passed a fresh award on 20-7-1993 fradulently and in collusion with the 4th respondent, wherein for the first time, it is stated that the lands under requisition belong to the Government. It is that award, which is challenged in this writ petition.
7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is inter alia stated that no evidence was produced before the Land Acquisition Officer to show that the said lands in S No.48/57 admeasuring Ac. 5.34 guntas were assigned to the writ petitioners or to their ancestors under Special Loani Rules, 1950. It is specifically stated that the Award dated 25-4-1993 referred to by the petitioners, was only a draft award and the formalities as per Section 11(1) of the Act were not complied with. There was no award as such in law and admittedly, it has not been communicated to any of the parties. It is specifically stated that the records were called for by this Court and the Original Records were lying in the Government Pleaders’ Office. It was a draft award and unsigned award sent to the District Collector as per Section 11(1) of the Act. It is obvious that the Collector refused to approve the said award at the stage of draft.
8. The Land Acquisition Officer, in his counter-affidavit, further states that an elaborate enquiry was made by him and an award was passed only on 20-7-1993 and the same has been filed into this Court along with the counter-affidavit in WP No.9965 of 1992.
9. It is obvious from the record that the District Collector has not approved the so-called draft award dated 25-4-1993, which remained in some cyclostyled form. Even according to the petitioners, it was not signed by the Land Acquisition Officer nor communicated to the petitioners as required underSection 12(2) of the Act. Under those
circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to issue any directions whatsoever compelling the respondents to pay compensation in terms of the said award dated 25-4-1993, which remained a mere scrap of paper. The whole trouble appears to have arisen “due to the perusal of the record by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP No.9965 of 1992, while the Government Record was available in the Office of the Government Pleaders. It is not as if the records were perused under the directions of this Court. In fact; even according to the petitioners, they were constrained to file WP No.9965 of 1992 on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer failed to pass the award in respect of the lands in question. The respondents produced a copy of the award dated 20-7-1993 along with the counter-affidavit in this Court in WP No.9965 of 1992. It is that award, which is signed by the Land Acquisition Officer and which received the approval as is required under Section 11 of the Act. It is a different matter altogether, if the same is also allegedly not communicated to the petitioners, and I shall deal with this aspect of the matter later.
10. In my considered opinion, a writ of mandamus does not lie compelling the respondents to act upon the unsigned and uncommunicated award. May be, the Land Acquisition Officer prepared some draft and sent the same for the approval of the Collector. It is not possible for this Court to investigate as to why the Collector has not approved the proposal of the Land Acquisition Officer and given the required consent for passing of the award. The subsequent award dated 20-7-1993 itself would disclose the reasons as to why an award could not be passed in favour of the petitioners awarding any compensation. In award, it is stated that the petitioners have manipulated the whole record. No original documents were filed. The challan, upon which reliance was placed, itself was a manipulated one. In the award, the Land Acquisition Officer has gone to the extent of saying that there is a clandistine deal and foul designs behind the claims. The award dated 20-7-1993 would disclose that the Land Acquisition Officer has adverted to each of the documents produced by the petitioners, upon which reliance was placed by them. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the said findings recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award dated 20-7-1993. I have referred and adverted in brief to the contents of the award, only to show the seriousness of the dispute between the parties. The petitioners claim to be the exclusive owners and in possession of the said lands as on the dale of acquisition. Hut, the respondents contend that the said lands are Government lands and that the records produced by the petitioners are fabricated.
11. Under those circumstances, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Collector to implement an un-signed and un-communicated award lying at the draft stage without approval and consent of the District Collector.
12. Sri G. Ramakrishnaiah, the teamed Counsel for the petitioners, however, levelled a serious criticism against the present award dated 20-7-1993. According to the ‘learned Counsel, the award dated 20-7-1993 is totally perverse and contrary to the record and material produced by the petitioners during the enquiry. According to the learned Counsel, the finding of the Land Acquisition Officer that the said lands are Government lands, is based on no evidence.
13. Sri N. Subba Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent, for whose benefit the said lands have been acquired, submits that the entire record is manipulated and that the petitioners failed to produce the Deed of Assignment. No pattas were granted to the petitioners. The challan produced by the petitioners in proof of payment of the
amount, is a fabricated one. Sri Subba Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Land Acquisition Officer rightly passed an award refusing to award any compensation whatsoever to these petitioners.
14. It is not possible for this Court to sit in appeal over the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. His jurisdiction to pass such an award is not challenged. It is not as if the Land Acquisition Officer has committed any procedural irregularity in passing the award so that ‘this Court can direct the Land Acquisition Officer to follow the procedure and pass an award in accordance with law. The Land Acquisition Officer, in categorical terms, declared that the petitioners herein failed to establish that they are the absolute owners of the lands in questions and in the result, the claimants are not entitled for compensation for the lands under acquisition.
15. Mere perusal of the award dated 20-7-1993 would show the seriousness and nature of the controversy between the parties. It is settled law that the Collector may refer the dispute, if any arises as to the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, to the civil Court for its decision. Any person interested, who has not accepted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act, may, by a written application, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court. Such objection could be in relation to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
16. It is settled law that the Collector is not bound to take any reference under Section 30 of the Act even when so applied for. The Collector has the jurisdiction to go into even the disputed questions of title and resolve the same. In a given case, the Collector may decline to go into such disputed questions and refer the dispute to the civil Court under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act for determining the extent of land acquired and the amount of compensation to be awarded thereof and to whom such amount is liable to be paid. May be, the Collector would be well advised to refer the disputed questions of title, if they involve making of enquiry into complicated questions of fact and law, to the civil Court; but, that is a matter which is left to the discretion of the Collector as the statute has clothed him with jurisdiction to elect either to decide such question or refer the same for decision by the civil Court. (See : G. Venkata Reddy v. Krishna Rao, ).
17. In the instant writ petition, the land Acquisition Officer, refused to award any compensation whatsoever to the petitioners and declared the acquired land belongs to Government. That means, there is a serious dispute with regard to the amount of compensation and also as to the persons to whom compensation is required to be paid. Undoubtedly, it would have been perfectly open to the petitioners not to accept the award. The petitioners could have required the Collector to refer the matter for determination by the civil Court. The petitioners have not availed any such remedy. It is not the case of the petitioners in this case that the Collector failed to refer the dispute for adjudication by a Competent Court of civil Jurisdiction inspite of such request from the petitioners. On the other hand, the petitioners pray for issuance of an appropriate writ to set aside the award dated 20-7-1993 and with a further request to revive the award dated 25-4-1993. Such a course is not permissible in Law.
18. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any such application for referring the
matter for a decision by the civil Court. If the matter was referred that it would have been perfectly open to the civil Court to adjudicate the matter on merits and it could have, if the facts so warrants, differed with the award by deciding the questions, of right, title and interest in the said lands. Admittedly, copy of the award was served upon the learned Counsel for the petitioners in WP No.9965 of 1992, and atleast from that date onwards, the petitioners have the knowledge of this award dated 20-7-1993. Nothing prevented the petitioners in demanding the Collector to send the matter for civil Court’s decision after they came to know about the same, even if no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served upon them by the Land Acquisition Officer. For some inexplicable reasons, the petitioners kept quiet and never asked for any reference. Under those circumstances, the Court finds it very difficult to accede to any of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, 1 cannot interfere with the award dated 20-7-1993 and express any opinion whatsoever in respect of contents of the Award. Any opinion by this Court may amount to deciding on intricate and complicated questions relating to right, title and interest in immovable property in this judicial review proceeding. Such an adjudication is neither possible nor permissible in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
20. For the reasons already stated, it is not possible for this Court to issue any writ giving effect to an unsigned and uncommunicated award dated 25-4-1993. It is not an award in the eye of Law. It remained as a mere scrap of paper in the record of the Land Acquisition Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
21. However, I may hasten to add that this Court has not expressed any opinion whatsoever with regard to the merits and contents of the Award rejecting the claim of the petitioners. It is always open to the petitioners to challenge the said Award and get the dispute resolved by availing such remedies, if any, available to them in Law. If the petitioners avail any such remedies, the same shall have to be disposed of in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in this order with regard to the claim of the petitioners for compensation.
WP No.9965 of 1992,
22. In view of the order passed in WPNo.13798 of 1993, the cause in this writ petition does not survive requiring any further adjudication. The same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.