Kongalla Balraj, v. Y.Sandeep Reddy,

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA Writ Appeal No.1324 of 2016 Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 37048 of 2015 dated 25.11.2015 by respondents 7 to 12 in the Writ Petition. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed W.P. No.37048 of 2015 to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to acquire land admeasuring Acs.45.00 covered by the survey numbers mentioned therein during the pendency of O.S. No. 638 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, as being arbitrary and illegal and contrary to G.O. Ms. No.45, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 22.7.2015; and, consequently, to set aside the proceedings dated 2.11.2015. They filed W.P.M.P. No. 47704 of 2015 to direct the respondents not to pay/disburse compensation to respondent Nos. 7 to 12 in respect of the said land.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge took note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the objection of the respondents-writ petitioners had been received by the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer; a report had also been obtained regarding the land from the Tahsildar; the petitioners had filed copies of I.A. Nos. 378 and 377 of 2015 in O.S. No.638 of 2006; and since the matter was subjudice before the competent Civil Court, payment of compensation for the acquired land was deferred awaiting adjudication by the competent Civil Court. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge held that it was evident that the compensation amount was not being disbursed awaiting orders from the competent Civil Court in the suit; as such, the apprehension of the respondentsWrit Petitioners, that compensation amount would be paid to the

appellants, was not substantiated; the Special Grade Deputy Collector had himself deferred payment of the compensation amount; and since the parties were already before the competent Civil Court, payment of compensation would abide by the orders of the Civil Court in the aforesaid suit. The Writ Petition was, accordingly, disposed of. Sri P. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that the said order could not have been passed without the appellants herein (respondents 7 to 12 in the writ petition) being put on notice, and without being given an opportunity of being heard; such an undertaking could not have been given by the learned Government Pleader as, pursuant to the understanding, the amount payable in terms thereof, has to be paid to the owner of the land; and mere pendency of the suit would not enable the respondent-officials to retain money, which rightfully belonged to the appellants.

While it does appear that the order was passed without putting the appellants on notice, and without giving them an opportunity of being heard, the learned Single Judge has recorded the submission of the learned Government Pleader, made on behalf of the respondents, that the amount would not be disbursed pending disposal of the suit. These instructions were issued in terms of the proceedings of the Special Grade Deputy Collector dated 11.11.2015 informing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein that payment of compensation to the subject land, admeasuring Acs.45.00, was being deferred as the dispute was civil in nature; and they should have their claims adjudicated before the competent Civil Court.

If the Appellants have any grievance, regarding the failure of the respondent-officials to disburse the amount, it is for them to avail their legal remedies. The order of the learned Single Judge merely records the submission, made on behalf of the learned Government Pleader, that the amount would not be disbursed. As such a submission resulted in the

respondents-writ petitioners grievances being addressed, the learned Single Judge recorded the submission and disposed of the Writ Petition. Even if the appellants herein had been heard, the learned Single Judge would have been justified in passing such an order basing on the instructions of the Government Pleader, as it is the Government which has chosen, on its own accord, not to disburse the said amount. If the action of the Government is illegal, and the proceedings issued by the Special Grade Deputy Collector dated 11.11.2015 is contrary to law, it is for the appellants herein, who claim to be aggrieved thereby, to avail their remedies instituting appropriate legal proceedings. Suffice it to make it clear that the order of the learned Single Judge, in W.P. No. 37048 of 2015 dated 25.11.

2015, would not disable the appellants from questioning the proceedings, of the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer dated 11.11.2015, in appropriate legal proceedings; and, if such proceedings are instituted, it shall be decided in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made by the Learned Single Judge in the order in W.P. No. 37048 of 2015 dated 25.11.2015.

With these observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) _____________________________ (A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J) 8th December, 2016 pnb

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA Writ Appeal No.1324 of 2016 Date: 8.12.2016 pnb