The Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act when proper notice is not served to rightful claimants.

JUDGMENT:

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. This Second Appeal, under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C'), has been filed by the Appellants / Respondents 1 to 4 / Defendants against the Decree and Judgment dated 12.11.2001, in A.S.No.13 of 1997, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’) reversing the Decree and Judgment dated 16.07.1997, in O.S.No.114 of 1994, on the file of Principal District Munsif, Nandikotkur, (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

2. Respondents 1 to 3 are the Plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.114 of 1994 for recovery of Rs.23,140/- towards compensation amount of plaint ‘B’Schedule properties with subsequent interest and for costs.

3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit is practical to mitigate confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

The plaint 'B' schedule properties originally belonged to Polagalla Chinna Naganna, the absolute owner. The Plaintiffs (Nos.1 to 3), his children, and Nagamma, his wife, inherited the properties after his death on 20.01.1979. Following Nagamma's death on 05.06.1980, the Plaintiffs became the sole heirs and continued to enjoy the properties. The Plaintiffs later learned that Defendants 2 and 3 had acquired the plaint 'B' schedule land for the Srisailam Right Branch Canal without notifying the Plaintiffs, as required by the Land Acquisition Act. During the inquiry, the Plaintiffs learned that the land was acquired under Award No.4/86-87, and compensation of Rs.23,140/- was paid to Nagamma in 1986. However, as Nagamma had passed away in 1980, the payment was invalid. The Plaintiffs, being the rightful heirs, should have received the compensation. The Plaintiffs issued a legal notice to Defendants 1 and 2 on 19.01.1991, and 3rd Defendant responded on 26.02.1991. The Plaintiffs assert that the 3rd Defendant made the compensation payment to an unrelated individual without proper investigation. Despite issuing a Section 80 C.P.C., notice on 26.10.1993, the Defendants took no action. The Plaintiffs are entitled to the compensation, as they are the rightful owners of the plaint 'B' schedule properties.

5. The 3rd Defendant filed a written statement, adopted by Defendants 1, 2 and 4, refuting the plaint's allegations, contended that the acquisition of the plaint ‘B’ Schedule property began in February 1986 after a requisition from the Executive Engineer, Srisailam Right Branch Canal, Nandikotkur. The property in question, measuring Ac.1.74 cents in Survey No.519/1A1, was under the possession of K. Nagamma, according to survey and revenue records. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and a draft declaration under Section 6 were issued in her favour on 27.08.1986 and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and other newspapers. The Plaintiffs did not raise any objections regarding ownership at the time of acquisition. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs were neither owners nor possessors of the property and were not listed in the revenue records. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notices to interested parties, conducted inquiries, and passed the award in favour of Nagamma, who confirmed the property devolved to her after her husband's death. The Defendants further asserted that the suit is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties. The Plaintiffs have no right to file the suit and request for dismissal, and this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

i. Whether the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are the heirs of late P.Chinna Naganna?

ii. Whether the Plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoying the plaint ‘B’ schedule property after the death of Nagamma, W/o late P.Chinna Naganna?

iii. Whether the Land Acquisition Authority has conduct prop