IMPORTANT POINTS:
(1) Land Acquisition – Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain dispute regarding entitlement of compensation is not barred.
(2) Land Acquisition – Compensation – Though suit as claimed by plaintiffs is maintainable, however, due to plaintiffs’ failure to establish their possession over suit schedule properties, they are not entitled to any compensation/ex-gratia as claimed in suit.

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 28.02.2013 in O.S.No.26 of 2008 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, (for short “the trial Court”), the appellants/plaintiffs preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the Decree and Judgment passed by the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the Original Suit.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for compensation of Rs.12,19,200/- in respect of amounts pertaining to suit lands lying in the deposit of the 2nd defendant and also for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from paying the said compensation amount of Rs.12,19,200/- to the defendants 6 and 7 or to their agents and to pay the said amount in respect of the suit schedule lands.

4. The brief averments, of the plaintiffs, are that, the plaintiffs 1 to 5 belong to Sugali Community. One Mude Hame Naik, who is the great, great, great maternal grand-father of the plaintiffs. The suit schedule property is the patta land of Mude Hame Naik. Upon his death, the property was inherited by his two sons i.e., Mude Bode Naik and Mude Gopal Naik, who jointly enjoyed the land. Mude Bode Naik, having no children, executed a Will on 20.11.1954 bequeathing his undivided half share in the suit schedule property to his brother Gopal Naik’s son, Mude Rama Naik, reserving the right of enjoyment during his life time and his wife Lakshumma’s life time. After the demise of Bode Naik and his wife in 1978 and 1980 respectively, the Will dated 20.11.1954 came into effect. Consequently, as per Hindu Succession Act (Section 8 and Schedule 11), Gopal Naik inherited his brother’s half share in 1980. Gopal Naik passed away in the year 1982 leaving the entire suit schedule property to his only son Mude Rama Naik. Thus, Rama Naik became absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

(a) It is further stated that M. Rama Naik was married and had three sons namely M. Tirupal Naik (1st plaintiff), Mude Venkata Ramana Naik (second plaintiff) and Mude Krishna Naik (who passed away in the year 2003) leaving his wife Mangamma (third plaintiff) and their two sons namely Mude Ashok Kumar and Mude Ramesh Naik, 4th and 5th plaintiff respectively. Upon Rama Naik’s demise in the year 1995, the suit schedule property was inherited by his three sons and their legal representatives. Thus, the plaintiffs 1 to 5 became the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. The suit lands have been standing in the name of plaintiff’s great grand-father Mude Bode Naik. The Deputy Tahsildar of Lakkireddypalli issued a Ryot passbook in the name of Mude Bode Naik, the plaintiff’s grand-father. The plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit schedule lands for many years, cultivating crops like Kandi, Jonna, Groundnuts, bajra etc., up to 2006.

(b) While the matters stood thus, the plaintiffs came to know that three months before initiating the suit, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had acquired the lands for Veligallu Project. One Chinna Reddy, 5th defendant who happens to be the husband of 4th defendant, is cunning and crooked person, making false revenue records in the name of third parties including his wife pertaining to the lands that acquired for Veligallu project for the purpose of claiming compensation from the 2nd defendant by playing fraud on the real title holders of the said lands. The 5th defendant created records in the names of 6th and 7th defendants regarding the suit schedule property to deprive the plaintiffs from getting the compensation from the government. The 2nd defendant failed to issue notice under Section 9 and 10 of Land Acquisition Act, to the plaintiffs for the suit land. Moreover, there was no enquiry conducted as per Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act. The defendants 2 to 5 are making efforts to pay compensation to defendants 6 and 7 by playing fraud on the plaintiffs. Despite sending notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., to t