Disputes concerning title and entitlement to land acquisition compensation are fact-intensive civil disputes and are not amenable to adjudication under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when a civil suit is already pending.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the objection petition dated 19/11/2019 submitted by the petitioner and in taking steps to pay the total compensation amount payable in respect of the house property bearing No. 5-33 at Kanaipally village, Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy District which is submerged in Shankara Samudram Balancing Reservoir under Bheema Phase-II only to the 4th respondent in pursuant to Award No.1/2014, dated 01/01/2014 though it is the petitioner and his father T.Balaiah are only the owners of the above house property, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to pay the compensation in respect of the above house property and his father T Balaiah, and pass”

2. Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Ms. Radha Reddy Katta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt. P.Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

I. Facts in brief:

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that house property bearing No.5-33 (old No.4-76) situated at Kanaipally Village, Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy District (for short “the subject property”), originally belonged to his grandfather, namely, Late Sri Kistanna. Upon his demise, the name of the petitioner’s grandmother, Late Kistamma was reflected in the Grampanchayath Records. Late Kistanna had one son namely, T.Balaiah, who is the father of the petitioner. T.Balaiah has two children; one daughter who is respondent No.4 and a son who is the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No.4 was married in the year 1991 and has been residing in her matrimonial home at Kanaipally Village itself. It is further submitted that the subject property was acquired by the Government for the purpose of submergence under the Shankara Samudram Balancing Reservoir, constructed under Bheema Phase-II project and an award was passed on 01.01.2014 vide Award No.1/2014 in File No.B/183/2010.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he and his father, T. Balaiah, are the sole and absolute owners of the said house property. It is alleged that respondent No.4, without any knowledge or consent of the petitioner or his father, got her name included as an owner in respect of the above house property in the Land Acquisition award proceedings and secured an award in her favour.

5. It is further alleged that respondent No.4 by forging the signature of the petitioner’s father, illegally received the compensation during the first phase of the disbursement. Having come to know of the award passed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities requesting that the compensation be paid to him and his father. However, respondent No.3 declined to accede to the request on the ground that the name of the petitioner was not reflected in the initial award enquiry.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that he being a co-sharer in respect of the subject house property, submitted an application dated 19.11.2019 to the office of the respondent No.3, requesting either to pay the compensation to him or to refer the dispute to the competent authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in