ORDER
[ENTITY], J
1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in [CASE NUMBER]. Writ petitioner is the appellant. She filed the said writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay interest till the final award is passed and consequently to quash the award dated 13-5-1997 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Uppal, Hyderabad as the same is passed in violation of [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. One Suit. [ENTITY] was the owner of land measuring Ac.271-18 guntas known as 'Shikarga' in Anantasagar, hamlet of Anantagiri village, Vikarabad Mandal, Rangareddy District. For the purpose of reserve forestation, the Government issued notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] on 7-7-1970 proposing to acquire the entire extent of land. In the preliminary valuation, the Land Acquisition Officer valued the entire land at Rs.13,64,744-89 ps. Later an award was passed by the L.A.O. for a compensation of Rs.3,69,959-71 ps. Challenging the same the writ petitioner filed [CASE NUMBER] to quash the said award on the ground that the L.A.O. committed mistake in passing the award for only Rs.3,69,959-71 ps. That writ petition was disposed of on 4-7-1991 directing the authorities to follow the procedure contemplated under the [ACT] from the stage of [SECTION] proceedings under the said Act onwards. It was also ordered that the claimant is entitled to withdraw the interest on the amount of compensation. Subsequent to the above order dated 4-7-1991, again the authorities committed the same mistake what they have committed earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed [CASE NUMBER]. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14-12-1995 directing the authorities to pass award at an early date. Pursuant to the said order, the authorities have passed orders determining the total compensation payable at Rs.1,31,162, thus reducing the earlier award and further ordering that the balance amount (i.e., the amount arrived at after deducting the sum of Rs.1,13,162 from the sum of Rs.3,69,959-71 ps) be recovered from the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of recovery etc., the writ petitioner filed [CASE NUMBER] contending that reducing the compensation which was awarded by the L.A.O. is not correct; fixing the award second time is not in confirmity with the first [SECTION] of the [ACT] and the orders of the authorities are otherwise bad in law.
3. The learned single Judge went through the records particularly to" know whether the requirement as contemplated under the first [SECTION] of the [ACT] was complied with or not. The learned single Judge found that there was prior approval of the award by the Joint Collector on 19-6-1996 itself. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Judge runs thus:
"On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents placed before this Court relevant papers, in original, and submits that the approval was already granted to the authority who passed the award by the competent authority on 19-6-1996 and thereafter the award was passed on 13-5-1997 and it was only sent for counter-signature to the Joint Collector on 16-6-1997 and not for approval for passing the award and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. He further submits that the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT] have been duly complied with and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
A perusal of the inspection report of the Joint Collector dated 19-6-1996, it is clear that after inspection of the land the amount has been fixed at Rs.200/- per acre and the same was approved by the Joint Collector on 19-6-1996 itself after spot inspection. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the award was passed without obtaining the approval of the Joint Collector is incorrect."
On the other contentions, the learned Judge found that there is no illegality in the action of the respondents, and dismissed the writ petition.
4. Sri [ENTITY], learned Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same contentions, in this appeal, which were urged before the learned single Judge. According to him, the learned Judge is not correct in holding that there was prior approval of the award by the Joint Collector; that the learned Judge is not correct in dismissing the writ petition; that there is huge difference between the initial award and the final award and the same is without any basis (i.e., the preliminary valuation of the land was fixed at rupees thirteen lakhs and odd, the initial award was passed for Rs.3,69,959-71ps and finally it was reduced to Rs.1,31,162/-, without any basis). He submits that the final award passed for Rs.1,31,162/- by the authorities under the [ACT] as against the initial award passed forRs.3,69,959-71ps, is arbitrary and illegal.
5. In opposition to the above submissions, Ms. [ENTITY], learned Government Pleader for Forests supported the order of the learned single Judge. According to her, the first [SECTION] of the [ACT] is no doubt mandatory, but there was prior approval of the award by the Joint Collector and thus there was no illegality on the part of the authorities in passing the award. She secondly submitted that no illegality has been pointed out by the writ petitioner in reducing the award amount from Rs.3,69,959-71ps to Rs.1,31,162/-, because the initial award was based on incorrect information. She finally submitted that the order under appeal does not warrant interference in this appeal.
6. In order to know whether there was any approval or otherwise of the award, we went through the order of the learned single Judge and the records and we are satisfied that there is full compliance with the provisions of the [ACT]. Regarding the other contention relating to reduction in the amount awarded, we may state that it is a question to be considered by the Reference Court, since it is stated that already reference has been made- to the civil Court under the provisions of the [ACT]. We have carefully perused the decision of the Supreme Court in [ENTITY] v. Bar Council of Kerala, , relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is no doubt true that the Apex Court, in that decision (in paragraphs-31 and 32) observed thus:
"It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in [PRECEDENT] which was followed by Lord [ENTITY] in [PRECEDENT], who stated as under:
"(W)here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all."
This rule has since been approved by this Court in [PRECEDENT], and again in [PRECEDENT], . These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT], and " the rule laid down in [PRECEDENT] was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by Courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law,"
7. It is true that when a particular mode is prescribed under any Act or Statute for doing a particular act, the authorities are bound to follow the same and any deviation will render the action taken illegal. The above cited ruling of the Supreme Court in [ENTITY]'s case (supra), with great respect, is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case on hand, there is full and absolute compliance with the requirements of first [SECTION] of the [ACT], and what the authorities were supposed to do was completely done in compliance with the statutory provisions. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the same was sent to the Joint Collector for approval. In our view, the said action is not contrary to the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT] vitiating the proceedings.
8. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of this appeal will not come in the way of the reference Court to determine the claimant's case for just and adequate compensation, on the basis of material available, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order or in the earlier proceedings that have taken place.
9. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, subject to the above observations.
No costs.