Jaganmohan Reddy, J. -
(1.) These appeals arise out of a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Warangal, in respect of compensation fixed for lands comprised in S. Nos. 55 to 59, 61, 77, 79, 80, 92, 86 and 87 compulsorily acquired by the Government under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of workers' Colony of the Azam Jahi Mills. The lands are said to have belonged to the claimant, one Raghavender Rao, but several persons filed claim petition. Under these, we need only confine our consideration to that made by Appan Venkatram Narsiah, Mittineni Ramaswami and Mohammed Hussain. The Collector had given his award on the 8th Sharewar 1354 Fasli assessing compensation for survey numbers 61, 77 and 59 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre, 56, 57, and 58 at the rate of Rs. 450/- per acre and 80, 86 and 87 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per acre and S. Nos. 79 and 92 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per acre, apart from the compensation for wells, trees and building situated on these lands, which was separately assessed. The total amount awarded including wells, trees, buildings etc.,. came to Rs. 1,36,177/2/-. Raghavender Rao being aggrieved with the award, made an application on this 24th Shrewar 1354 F., that the case may be referred to the Court under Section 14 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act. In that application, he challenged the public purpose for which the properties were taken and stated that originally they were acquired for the Municipality and were handed over to the Azam Jahi Mills and as such wee not taken for the purposes declared in the notification and therefore the acquisition was not necessary for any purpose of the Government. He further contended that the procedure necessary for the acquisition is not followed and the enquiry was not proper and that the assessment was made by the Tahsildar and not the Collector, though the latter passed the award on the basis of the Tahsildar's report, which is not correct. As such, he submitted that the award was invalid and the whole proceedings null and void. He further impeached the award of the Collector on the ground that the lands which are situate near the town and suitable for building purposes within the town area municipal limits with all its amenities which they had, could not be considered as agricultural lands and that compensation could not be assessed on that basis, that the prices at which the neighbouring lands were acquired and sold recently wee not taken into consideration and if taken into consideration Rs. 5/- per sq. yd. will be the fair market price of the land. In this view, he claimed enhanced compensation for the wells, buildings and trees on the land with disturbance charges under Section 18. It may be stated that the other claimants did not apply for a reference, but notwithstanding the dispute between them was also referred to the Court by the Collector under Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. After the award, there were some attempts at compromise between the Government and Raghavender Rao had also filed a suit against the Government for cancellation of the award and for the grant of a permanent injunction against the Government restraining them from interfering with the possession of the claimants. That suit was dismissed. A further fact may also be stated, namely, that after the reference to the Court, a compromise was arrived at between Ram Narsu, Ramaswamy and Md. Hussain on 29-7-1959 according to which 44 acres 3 guntas of Survey Nos. 55, 58, 59, 77 and 92 admittedly belonged to Raghaveder Rao exclusively and 11 acres, 11 guntas of Survey Nos. 86, 87, 77, 92 jointly to V. Ram Narsu and M. Ramaswamy and the claim against survey No. 56. was withdrawn. In respect of S. No. 56, three persons, namely Shaik Dadan, Abdul Razak and Yasin Bi filed an objection petition against Md. Hussain in the District Court claiming that S. No. 56 is an ancestral property and they as co-heirs of Mr. Hussain are entitled to 3/4 the share of the compensation awards for this plot according to Muhammadan Law and a separate enquiry was made regarding this objection petition. The Government and Azam Jahi Mills in their counter stated that the land was used an agricultural land inspite of its close proximity to the town and compensation awarded on that basis was correct, that the land for Grain Market brought by the Warangal Municipality is not so near the disputed plot as to justify the claim petitioner's demand, that the price of the lands should be judged by the price awarded for it, that the claim-petitioner is not entitled to any enhanced compensation, nor his contention that the Collector had no competence to make the order correct. With these allegations between the parties, several issues were drawn. But it is unnecessary to consider them in detail, except to state, that the compensation was allowed at the rate of Re. 1/-per sq. yd., and that the share of claimant Reghavender Rao or his assignees Abdul Ali Khan and Bhowri Lal at whose instance the claim was referred to the Court under S. 14 are entitled to be paid compensation at that rate. The Court also considered the authority as to whether respondents 4 to 6, namely, N. Venkataram Narsiah, M. Ramaswami and Md. Hussain; who have not applied for a reference under S. 14 for enhancement of the compensation can benefit by the compensation made on a reference made by the claimant Raghavender Rao. The learned District Judge thought that they could not and as such directed that those respondents will receive compensation only at the rate settled by the Collector in his award for the portion of the lands to which their title has been admitted in the compromise. In so far as the claim of Shaik Dadan, Abdul Razak and Yasin Bi in respect of s. No. 56 is concerned, the claim was dismissed and that Md. Hussain was entitled to the compensation as per compromise. Against this judgment and decree, Md. Hussain filed F. A. 78/1 and the Collector of Warangal and the Azam Jahi Mills Ltd., filed F. A. 79/1 and Mithineni Ramaswamy. In all these appeals, the points that arise for determination are : !. Whether the enhanced compensation awarded by the District Judge is justified? And
(2.) If , so, whether the appellants in F. A. 78/1 and 80/1 are entitled to their enhanced compensation? Taking the last point first, namely, whether the appellants in F. A. Nos 78/1 and 80/1 are entitled to the enhanced compensation notwithstanding the fact that they had not applied for making a reference under S. 14 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, it may be stated that the District Judge had evidently omitted to consider the order made by his predecessor on the 9th January 1951 in respect of the same matter. In that order it is clearly stated that the point for determination was, when on behalf of defendants 4, 5 and 6 (who are the appellants in the two appeals before us) no application was made under Section 14 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Taluqdars within time to refer the matter to the Court, are they entitled to the compensation fixed by the Court and can the permission be given to them to adduce evidence regarding the valuation. In so far as the 6th defendant is concerned, i.e., the appellant in D. A. 78/1, no application was made by him against the compensation fixed is the award, nor is it contended that the value fixed is low. But, it was however contended by him that he was entitled to the whole compensation amount. As such the 6th defendant can adduce evidence in that respect only so that he can substantiate his claim. As regards the compensation, he neither can apply nor lay any claim nor can adduce evidence in that respect. So far as defendants 4 and 5, that is, the appellants in F. A. 80/1 are concerned, since A. Raghavender Rao had made an application in respect of the survey numbers under S. 14 within time and since the dispute was only in respect of the distribution of the compensation amount between defendants 4, 5 and the Plaintiff Raghavender Rao and since it was settled by a compromise dated 4th August, 1950 whatever compensation is to be fixed, the plaintiff and defendant would be declared entitled to distribution in accordance with the compromise. The District Judge stated in other words, it can be said that the application has been made as against all the survey numbers within time under S. 14, that the distribution of compensation would be in accordance with the compromise and defendants 1 to 3 have no concern and that whatever evidence the plaintiff Raghavender Rao would lead can be treated as evidence of defendants 4 and 5 and that it is not necessary for defendants 4 and 5 to adduce separate evidence. In the result, the District Judge held that although no application was made on behalf of defendants 4 and 5 under the Land Acquisition Act, as the claim of the plaintiff was made within time under the section for the total numbers, it can be treated as sufficient. While it is true that the District Judge ignored the previous decision on this matter, we have to consider the question. But before we do so, it is necessary to set out the two compromise petitions filed by Raghavender Rao in respect of the appellants in F. A. Nos. 78/1 and 80/1. He filed the following compromise petition D/- 8-12-1951 relating to the appellant in F. A, 78/1.
"In the above suit the petitioner who was a claimant to the extent of half the share in Survey No. 56 for compensation relinquishes his claim to the extent in favour of Mohammed Hussain minor under the guardianship of Jameela Bee. If now first Taluqdar wants to lead rebuttal, he may be permitted to do so. After inspection of site, final arguments can be heard. The duration of the case also has been long enough. It is prayed Mohammed Hussain the minor and after inspection of the site final arguments be heard." The other compromise dated 29-7-1959 related to the appellants in F. A. 80/1 and Raghavender Rao and is as follows : "In the above-said case compromise has been effected between the plaintiff and the defendants as regards their claim for compensation as follows and they have put their signatures.
(3.) The area acquired by the Azam Jahi Mills is shown in the margin. The area of Survey Nos. in the margin belongs to Akula Raghavender Rao and he alone is entitled to get the compensation. The trees and the well situated in Survey Nos. 55 and 58 and the compensation that would be fixed. Akula Raghavender Rao would be entitled to get it.