JUDGMENT : (Per Bilal Nazki, J.)

This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree in O.P.No. 276 of 1993. Land admeasuring Ac. 8-31 guntas and 61 sq.yards in T.S.No. 26 and Sy.Nos. 286 to 291, 293 and 296 situated at Bagh Amberpet village, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad was acquired for the purpose of providing police parade grounds and ultimately an award was passed. A reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Court which decided the matter on 21-1-2000. During the pendency of the reference before the trial Court the present appellant moved an application and got himself arrayed as party-claimant No. 16 claiming that the acquired land was surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, therefore any compensation payable towards the land should be paid to the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and not to other claimants. The claimants 1 to 14 claimed that they were brothers and sisters and were legal heirs of the deceased pattedar. The claimant No. 15 had claimed that she had purchased an extent of 480 sq. yards under Ex. A-1-registered sale deed. On the question of apportionment between the claimants 1 to 15 no dispute was projected before the Civil Court or before this Court. Therefore, there would be no necessity in going to the question of apportionment of compensation in between the claimants 1 to 15. The trial Court also found that the claimant No. 16-Urban Land Ceiling Authority had not proved the claim that the acquired land before the acquisition had vested in the State, therefore the trial Court declined to accept the claim of the claimant No. 16 and awarded the compensation in favour of claimants 1 to 15. This appeal has been filed by claimant No.16. So the first question is whether the land had vested in the State under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and if so what would be the consequences. The second question would be, even if the proceedings under the Ceiling Act had been initiated, whether the appellant would be entitled to challenge the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act.

2. The claimant No. 16 who is the appellant herein produced one witness before the trial Court who was a Tahasildar in the Department at the relevant point of time. It may be interesting to note that another piece of land belonging to mainly the same claimants had also been declared surplus which was subject matter of lot of litigations and the matter went up to the Supreme Court and it appears that certain matters are still pending before the High Court. Mainly the statement has been made by R.W. 1 with respect to that land for which exemption had been granted in favour of one Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society and subsequently the exemption had been withdrawn. With respect to the present controversy he exhibited only four documents. Ex. B-1 is the notice under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 which was issued on 29-6-1982. Ex. B-2 is the notification dt.16-12-1982 under Section 10(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Ex. B-3 is an Errata to notification- Ex. B-2. Ex. B-4 is not relevant because it is an order passed by the Supreme Court concerning the land for which exemption was granted and later withdrawn, that land is not subject matter of the present appeal.

3. Now it appears that the process of acquisition of land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was initiated on 29-6-1982 after the declaration had been made by the claimants in terms of the Act. On the other hand, draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued on 24-9-1990 and published on 4-12-1990. Possession of the acquired land had been handed over on 19-1-1991. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 6-2-1993. During the process of enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer the present appellant did not participate in the proceedings. At no point of time they challenged the notifications issued i