Allowed

Moravineni Prabhakar Rao v. Moravineni Seetha Rathnam

Telangana HC16 Aug 2011CRP/4490/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision allowed the revision petitioners' application to reject a partition suit involving disputed compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute to the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside; I.A. No. 11 of 2010 allowed directing the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the compensation dispute to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Moravineni Prabhakar Rao Vs Moravineni Seetha Rathnam — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

+ C.R.P. No.4490 of 2010

¶3

% 16-08-2011

¶4

# Moravineni Prabhakar Rao & others

¶5

..petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

$ Moravineni Seetha Rathnam & others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

!Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana

¶10

^Counsel for respondents . : Sri T. Sreedhar, for RR1 & 2 G.P. for Arbitration, for RR 3 & 4 Sri K. Vidyasagar, for R-5 Sri S. Venkateswarlu, for RR 6 & 7

< Gist:

> Head Note:

Citations:

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶15

C.R.P. No.4490 of 2010

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

The respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.63 of 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, against respondents 3 to 7 and the petitioners herein (defendants 3 to 5), for partition. They claimed share in the suit schedule property. The petitioners filed written-statement in the suit claiming exclusive rights over the suit schedule property, on the strength of a Will, dated 04-06-1991, said to have been executed by late Moravineni Kotaiah. They have also filed I.A.No.11 of 2010, under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint. According to them, the suit schedule properties were submerged in an irrigation project, and that the lands were notified for acquisition. They pleaded that once the Government issued notifications, in exercise of powers under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), it is not open to anyone to institute a suit, in respect of the lands notified for acquisition. The respondents 1 and 2 opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 2204-2010. Hence this revision.

¶18

Heard Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, for respondents 3 and 4, Sri K. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, and Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7.

¶19

It is a matter of record that the suit schedule properties were notified for acquisition, by the time the suit was filed. The petitioners are under the impression that the land stood vested in the Government, and that the respondents 1 and 2 are challenging the very acquisition of the lands. They are not correct. The record

¶20

in fact, discloses that the land is yet to vest in the Government and the respondents 1 and 2 did not challenge the proceedings of acquisition, as such. Their effort is to get a share in the compensation, that may be determined for the land.

¶21

The Land Acquisition Officer, i.e. the 4^th respondent herein is conferred with the power to determine the market value. If more claims than one are presented before him, claiming the compensation, or part of it, he has two options: In case the material before him discloses that the claim of one of them is absolute, and born out by record, and other claims are not supported by any material, he can pay the compensation to the true owner. On the other hand, if the claims warrant adjudication by a Court of law, he would be under obligation, to refer the matter to the Civil Court, under Section 30 of the Act, duly depositing the compensation into the Court.

¶22

In the instant case, the claim made by the petitioners cannot be rejected in limini, and the proper forum for adjudication thereof, is a Court of law. The rights of the respondents 1 and 2, on the one hand, and those of the petitioners, and other private parties, on the other hand, can effectively be adjudicated in a reference under Section 30 of the Act, as and when the compensation is deposited. The present suit does not appear to be the proper avenue, though the plaint presented by them cannot be rejected under any grounds mentioned in Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C.

¶23

Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed,

¶24

a) directing that the order under revision be set aside; and

¶25

b) I.A.No.11 of 2010 is allowed, directing that a decree be passed requiring the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e. the

¶26

2^nd defendant in the suit, to refer the dispute, as to the claim of compensation by the petitioners herein, vis-à-vis the suit schedule property; to a Civil Court, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, as and when the award is passed.

¶27

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶29

Dt.16-08-2011.

¶30

Note: LR copy to be marked. (B/O)KO

Moravineni Prabhakar Rao v. Moravineni Seetha Rathnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moravineni Prabhakar Rao v. Moravineni Seetha Rathnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Ramanatha Reddy Vs The District Cooperative Officer

Mohd.Akber Ali Vs The Singareni Colleries company Limited, rep.by its

J.Vasantha, W/o Buchi Reddy, Vs The Project Director

B.Prakash, S/o Ramchandraiah, Vs Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University

Mynam Yesuraju Vs The Commissioner and Director of Sugar and Dane

Malothu Venkanna Vs A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd.