IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Disputes regarding property rights must be resolved in civil courts, not through writ petitions, as they involve questions of title and possession.

ORDER :

(C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J.) :

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of respondents in not paying compensation awarded vide Award Proceedings No.B/1690/2008 dated 28.08.2010 by the respondent No.1 in respect of their land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.778 situated at Bhongir Village and Mandal, acquired for the purpose of formation of National Highway No.202 from KM 30 to 54 (Hyderabad-Yadagirigutta), Nalgonda District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of Land Acquisition Act and other consequential reliefs.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they along with one Pinnapureddy Mohan Reddy are the owners, pattedars and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.778 situated at Bhongir Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 07.07.1997. It is their further case that their names were also mutated in the revenue records vide Proceedings No.J/1921/1997 dated 25.06.1997 and pattedar passbooks and title deeds were issued vide Patta No.1235 dated 09.12.1997. It is also their case that in the revenue records, the nature of the lands has been classified as “Patta lands” and the names of their predecessors in interest depicted as pattedars. While-so, the respondent No.3 has issued a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, for acquiring land for formation of four laning National Highway No.202 from KM 30 to 54 (Hyderabad-Yadagirigutta) road. On the requisition proposals submitted by the Project Director of National Highways Authority of India, a survey has been conducted and consequential thereto, a notification has been issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 on 10.12.2009 and published in the newspapers requiring all the interested persons to submit their objections within 21 days from the date of publication. The case of the petitioners is that in response to said notification, they have submitted proposals claiming right over the property for payment for compensation. The respondents after conducting award enquiry, vide proceedings No.B/1690/2008 dated 28.08.2010 awarding compensation @ Rs.1200/- per square yard with all consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, the respondents issued notice to the petitioners to receive the compensation. The petitioner No.1 received the cheque and on verification of the cheque found that his name was wrongly mentioned as Jitta Ravinder Reddy instead of Gitta Ravinder Reddy and therefore, he submitted a representation on 15.04.2011 requesting to issue another cheque with correct name. It is stated that Petitioner No.2 could not appear on the scheduled date to collect the cheque due to personal inconvenience. It is further stated that another claimant, Sri P. Mohan Reddy, received his cheque for Rs.22,72,053/- and encashed the same. However, the respondents issued a notice dated 11.07.2011, stating that they had received an application/representation claiming that the land to an extent of Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.778, is Wakf land and directed the petitioners and others to appear on 25.07.2011 with relevant revenue records as proof of patta lands. In pursuance of the same, it is stated that the petitioners submitted sale deeds and also the mutation proceedings issued by the Tahsildar in Proceedings No.J/1921/1997 dated 25.06.1997 and requested the respondents to drop the proceedings and pay the compensation.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that even after submitting Registered Sale deeds, mutation proceedings and pattedar passbooks, the respondents are not paying the compensation and therefore, the said action on the part of respondents amounts to violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently, prayed this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that in the Khasra Pahani fo