Judgment:
ORDER
G. Bikshapathy, J.
1. The Civil Revision Petitions and the Writ Petitions arise between the same parties and hence they are being disposed of under a common order.
2. The cases have chequered career. One Dr. K.S. Raghava Chari was the owner of various extents of lands situated in Manchalakatta village in Mahabubnagar Dist. He had two wives. The 1st wife and son predeceased him leaving one daughter Pankajam (1st petitioner in W.Ps.) and Soundaryavalli, daughter-in-law (4th respondent). The 2nd wife Smt. Tangamma was alive as on the date of the death of Dr. K.S. Raghavachari. She is having two daughters Prema and Vasantha (petitioners No. 2 and 3 in W.Ps.) and one son Parthasarathy (Respondent No. 3). The vast extents of lands owned by Dr. K.S. Raghavachari were acquired for construction of Srisailam Hydro Electric Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Awards in Award No. 29/75, dated 30-8-1975, Award No. 32/75, dated 15-11-1975, Award No. 33/ 75, dated 15-11-1975 and Award No. 125 of 1978, dated 10-11-1978. However, there was a dispute with regard to certain lands on the ground that they are Inam lands and therefore reference was made to Sub-Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District. The learned Sub-Judge in O.P. Nos.51 /76,63/76,67/76, and 311/1978 held that late Dr. Raghavachari was alone entitled for compensation amount and thus he received the amounts in respect of the lands. It is also submitted that the said Raghavachari executed a Will on 5-5-1982 bequeathing the property on various legal heirs. While so, W.P. No. 1 1116/1986 was filed seeking direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference Under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 25-8-1986 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the matter was not taken by the Land Acquisition Officer for a considerable time. In the meanwhile the Government having realised that there were number of disputes with regard to land acquisition proceedings in respect of Srisailam project and that number of persons were not paid the compensation and with a view to settle all these long pending claims directed all the references to the Lok Adalat by notification in G.O.Ms. No. 234 Irrigation and (GAD) Project Wing. TGP. III Dept., dated 15-10-1993 stipulating certain guidelines. On coming to know of such a notification, the third petitioner addressed a registered letter on 2-1-1994 to the Land Acquisition Officer requesting for apportionment of the compensation among all the legal heirs. However, no action was taken. Again, a Lawyer's notice was issued on 22-8-1994 stating that there are six legal heirs including the petitioners. The Land Acquisition Officer without conducting any enquiry with regard to the settlement of the compensation referred the matter Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25-10-1994 only mentioning the names of the Respondents Nos.2,3 and 4 as legal representatives of Dr. K.S. Raghavachari. It is also averred that without notice to the persons interested and without verifying the records registered the references as O.P. Nos.651 /94,848/1994,690/1994 and 692/1994 on 6-2-1995 and passed the decrees on the same day in terms of the directions given by the Government. The petitioners submit that there was violation of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 234 and decree was obtained by Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 by playing fraud in collusion with the authorities. However when the petitioners came to know that cheques and bonds were being handed over to the Respondents Nos.2 to 4, they filed two sets of I.As in each O.P., one I.A. to bring the petitioners as legal representatives of late Dr. K.S. Raghavachari and the other LA. to withhold the issue of cheques and bonds. The Respondents Nos.2 to 4 filed counter admitting the relationship, but disputing the entitlement on the ground that they are entitled for the amounts by virtue of a Will executed by Dr. K.S. Raghavachari. The learned Sub-Judge dismissed the applications on 28-4-1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the Civil Revision Petitions were filed. While ordering notice before admission in Civil Revision Petitions on 19-6-1995, a status-quo was granted by this Court. Thus, four Civil Revision Petitions i.e., C.R.P. Nos. 1867/1995, 1868/1995, 1869/1995 and 1870/1995 were filed against the orders in two sets of I.As. Apart from the C.R.Ps. the petitioners also filed four Writ Petitions with the similar contentions seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the reference made Under Section 18 of the Act and the decrees passed by the Lok Adalat in favour of Respondents No. 2 to 4 as wholly illegal and mala fide.
3. I have heard the learned Counsels for Petitioners, Respondents and also the learned Government Pleader.
4. I shall deal with Civil Revision Petitions in the first instance and thereafter the Writ Petitions. Admittedly, the Civil Revision Petitions are tiled against the orders of the Sub-Judge, Wanaparthy refusing the petitioners to bring them on record and to stay the disbursement of the cheques and bonds to the Respondents Nos.2 to 4. The order was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in respect of I.As. on 28-4-1995. A contention was raised before him that though the petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased Dr. K.S. Raghavachari, they are not entitled to claim the compensation inasmuch as the compensation has to be paid in accordance with the Will executed by Sri Raghavachari. Under the said Registered Will, Respondent No. 2 alone is entitled to receive the compensation. It was the contention of the Respondents before the Subordinate Judge, that the amount was allowed in favour of Respondents Nos.2 to 4 as per the terms of the Will and the petitioners cannot be impleaded in the proceedings when once the decrees have been passed long back and the amounts are in the process of disbursement. It may be open for the petitioners to file a separate suit if they are effected by the decrees passed by the Court. The learned Subordinate Judge after considering the terms of the Will, held that the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer in pursuance of the directions of the High Court in W.P. No. 11116/86. The said Respondents also filed affidavits on 15-11-1994 along with a compromise deed duly attested by the Village Administrative Officer and duly signed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The decrees were prepared on the basis of the affidavits on 6-2-1995 and copy of the decree was sent to the Land Acquisition Officer for further action. The cheques and bonds were prepared and sent to them for distribution. 4th Respondent also received the cheque and bonds from the Court. Thereafter the petitioners came up with L.R. petition for withholding the remaining cheques. The learned Judge held that O.Ps. were already disposed of by the Court and they are not pending in Court for disposal and that late Dr. K.S. Raghavachari was not the original Awardee to bring these petitioners as Legal Representatives of Dr. Raghavachari. Therefore, the question of bringing the petitioners as legal representatives does not arise and therefore it passed the orders dismissing the applications and consequently directed the cheques and bonds prepared in the name of Respondent No. 2 and 3 to be delivered. However, he observed, that it is open for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for recovery of their shares from Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Admittedly, as on the date of the applications, when the applications for impleadment as legal representatives and also for withholding the amounts was filed, the O.Ps. were already disposed of and decrees were already prepared. Therefore, there is no provision to bring the petitioners as legal representatives once the decree has been passed. The petitioners having failed to take appropriate steps during the pendency of the O.Ps. are estopped from filing such application when the matter was already decided. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. It was also made clear in the order that it is open for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for claiming their share amount from Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, I do not find any merits in these Civil evision Petition Nos. 1867/1995,1868/1995,1869/1995 and 1870/1995 and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly they are dismissed at the admission stage.
5. Coming to the Writ Petitions, the petitioners state that reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently decrees passed in the O.Ps. are illegal and invalid. Admittedly, the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer in pursuance of the directions granted by this Court in W.P. No. 1 1120/1986. In pursuance of the said directions, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Civil Court and the compensation decided in favour of the Awardees i.e., Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Since reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer already culminated in the decree of the Court, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the said proceedings in the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the decree would not have been granted in favour of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 inasmuch as the Will only empowers Respondent No. 2 to receive the amounts. He also submits that the late Dr. K.S. Raghavachari could not have been executed the Will in respect of the amounts which were not available as on the date of his death. Therefore, the Will cannot be taken aid of by the Respondents No. 2 to 4. I am afraid, I cannot accept these contentions in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitioners having filed the Civil Revision Petitions, again filed these three writ petitions seeking quashing of references and also the decrees passed by the Lok Adalat. When their application for impleadment in the O.Ps. proceedings was rejected by the Civil Court and that was a subject matter of Civil Revision Petitions, the present Writ Petitions cannot be entertained for the reasons stated above. I am not inclined to admit the Writ Petitions and they are accordingly liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court granted interim stay of delivery of bonds. In view of this order, the bonds of the respective respondents shall be released forthwith, if not already released.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions and the Writ Petitions are dismissed at the admission stage. However, it is made clear that the orders of this Court will not preclude the petitioners from claiming their respective share amounts from Respondents No. 2 to 4 by means of a Civil Suit. Should the petitioners choose to file the suits, any observation or finding recorded in these orders shall not be taken into consideration by the Court trying the Civil Suits. No costs.