THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26895 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not passing award in respect of petitioners lands and structures situated at Malinenipatnam village, Atloor mandal, Kadapa district as per the declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act dated 17.12.2007 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pass award and pay compensation to the petitioners together with all statutory benefits as per Act 68 of 1984. According to the petitioners, they are the residents of Malinenipatnam village, Atloor mandal, Kadapa district and they own lands and houses in the said village. The respondents have acquired the entire village lands and structures thereon for the purpose of submergence under Somasila Project Reach No.17 under contour level 315. Accordingly, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 12.2.2007 notifying only lands leaving the structures. Since the respondents failed to notify the structures in the 4(1) notification, petitioners and other villagers filed W.P.No.2658 of 2007 seeking a direction to quash the 4(1) notification and direct the respondents to issue fresh 4(1) notification by including all the structures of petitioners in terms of Joint Inspection dated 21.11.2006. After hearing both sides, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to put forward their contentions in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act. This Court further directed the third respondent to take into consideration the objections and incorporate the structures in the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In spite of specific directions of this Court in W.P.No.2658 of 2007, the respondents failed to conduct 5-A enquiry and issue Section 6 declaration. Under those circumstances, petitioners were compelled to file W.P.No.16843 of 2007 reiterating their earlier prayer to issue fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act including all structures in pursuance of joint inspection report dated 21.11.2006. This Court by an interim order dated 9.8.2007 directed the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act within one week from the date of receipt of order. In pursuance of the interim orders, respondents conducted 5-A enquiry on 11.9.2007. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.12.2007 with a direction to the respondents to publish Section 6 declaration within a period of three months. After publication of Section 6 declaration on 17.12.2007 all the structures and lands got submerged in the Somasila Project due to maintenance of full tank level and the petitioners were evacuated from the houses without paying any compensation and are now residing at various places. Petitioners submitted their claims on 10.11.2008 after receiving notices under Section 9 and 10 of the Act. According to the petitioners, not passing award and not paying 80% of the proposed compensation as per Section 17(3)-A of the Act is not only arbitrary and without jurisdiction, but also violative of Article 300- A of the Constitution of India. Hence this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioners and stated that the petitioners have appeared for award enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer and they could not prove their title over the lands under acquisition by producing substantial evidences in support of their claim, such as, (1) Permission granted by the Gram Panchayat for constructing houses in the land (2) Tax receipts issued by the Gram Panchayat for the structures published in the draft declaration or claimed (3) Electricity connection number with details (4) Power consumption bills (5) Household ration cards. During the inspection, it was found by the Land Acquisition Officer that major number of structures were erected without windows, ventilators etc. All these factors constitute the very fact that the structures notified in the draft declaration were constructed with the sole moto of getting wrongful compensation and to knock away the Government Exchequer and not for residential purpose. Therefore, respondents could not pass supplementary award for structures notified in the draft declaration. It is further stated that the culture of raising unauthorized structures having knowledge of acquisition and eventual submersion of lands is prevalent in the villages covered by acquisition for Somasila Project. Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record. It is an admitted position that after issuance of 4(1) notification, when it was pointed out that the structures are not notified, the respondents have issued Section 6 notification. In the said notification, structures existing on the acquired land have been notified. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed award only to the extent of land, excluding the structures. Petitioners filed the present writ petition to the extent of questioning the said action. This Court, granted interim direction on 13.3.2009 directing the respondents to pass award in respect of lands and structures acquired as per Section 6 declaration under the Act dated 17.12.2007 and on filing vacate stay petition by the respondents, the said order was made absolute on 15.4.2009. Questioning the same, respondents filed Writ Appeal No.632 of 2009 and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 1.5.2009 dismissed the said writ appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.4.2009, with the modification that the time granted for passing supplementary award shall stand extended upto 31.7.2009. It was further held that if no such award is passed, the Land Acquisition Officer shall appear before the learned single Judge on 3.8.2009 and the writ petition was directed to be posed before the learned single Judge. According to the learned counsel for respondents, the respondents have passed ‘nil’ Award No.3/2009-10 (Ref.No.B/31/2006) dated 15.9.2009, granting no compensation to the petitioners in respect of structures. The said action of the respondents was justified stating that the structures raised were illegal, therefore petitioners are not entitled for any compensation whatsoever. The fact remains that when 4(1) notification was issued and the structures were not included, a writ petition was filed before this Court and as per the directions therein, the structures were included and Section 6 declaration was published. Once the structures are mentioned in Section 6 declaration, passing of some award as per the discretion of the Land Acquisition Officer is a must. However, in this case, the respondents wanted to wash away their hands by saying that they have passed ‘nil’ award granting no compensation to the petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they may have to approach the Civil Court and work out their remedies as available under law. In this regard, it may be necessary to notice that being aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.632 of 2009, respondents have carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of SLP and the said SLP was disposed of by order dated 17.7.2009, which reads as under: “Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has seriously objected to the observation of the Division Bench, which is as under: ‘It is also made clear that the question raised regarding validity of the Award relating to structures shall be open to be agitated in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. No costs.’ It is submitted that the writ Court was not the proper forum for challenging an Award of the Collector in land acquisition proceedings. Mr.L.N.Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents states that this legal position cannot be controverted and that he gives an undertaking that the Award if challenged will be under the Land Acquisition Act and not before the writ Court. With consent of both parties, the date for the presentation of the Award is extended by two months from today. The special leave petition is disposed of with the above observation”. Taking advantage of the same, the respondents states that they have already passed ‘nil’ award granting no compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to approach Civil Court and work out their remedies. This approach made by the respondents is nothing but pedantic and not in fair and equitable sense. If the award is passed by fixing a particular rate i.e. for example Rs.100/- and even if the claimants are entitled for Rs.1000/-, it is justified in saying that they are supposed to approach Civil Court and seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for its decision, but this is not one such case. To support their case, the respondents relied upon a decision i n MAHADEO BAJIRAO PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[1], which reads as under: “We are here not concerned with the correctness of the decision, but the fact remains that having considered the claim of the appellant for compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim. This does not amount to the making of an award, commonly described as ‘nil award’. If the appellant was aggrieved by such an award, it was open to him to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act which the appellant actually did. We, therefore, cannot hold that no award as envisaged by Section 11 of the Act was declared on 29.8.1994, since the claim of the appellant was considered and was totally rejected. There was, therefore, no question of giving any calculation of the manner in which the compensation was computed. Since, the application under Section 18 was not filed within six weeks of the receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the High Court did not commit any error in holding that the application was barred by limitation. It was not disputed before us that the Land Acquisition Officer making a reference, or the Court considering a reference under Section 18 of the Act has no power of condonation of delay in making an application under the aforesaid section”. I am of the considered opinion that the above decision has no relevance to the facts of the present case. The respondent authorities under Land Acquisition Act cannot act according to their whims and fancies. Before the apex Court, the learned counsel appearing for respondents has rightly conceded that if there is any dispute as to awarding compensation (quantum), it is always needs to be worked out before the Civil Court. Admittedly, in this case, structures were raised much prior to issuance of 4(1) notification and they were submerged in the full tank level. The petitioners are entitled for just compensation for all the structures raised by them before the 4(1) notification was published. In fact, the dispute as to the existence of the structures and their validity etc., already attained finality. If there was any dispute as to the validity of structures, the respondents could not included them in Section 6 declaration and could have raised all the objections they have at that point of time. Instead, they raised this issue again at this stage. It is not open for the respondents to say though the structures are valid for the purpose of Section 6 declaration, but not for grant of compensation. This they could have raised in the earlier round of litigation, which attained finality before the Apex Court. It is always open for the respondents to decide the nature of construction and for the compensation entitled to by the petitioners. Instead of doing so, the respondents have made a pedantic approach and passed a ‘nil’ award which is unjust, arbitrary and illegal. Thus, the Award No.3/2009-10 (Ref.No.B/31/2006) on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-II, Kadapa dated 15.9.2009 is taken up suo motu for consideration and declared as arbitrary and illegal. For all the reasons recorded above, the impugned award No.3/2009- 10 (Ref.No.B/31/2006) on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-II, Kadapa dated 15.9.2009 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to pass an appropriate award fixing compensation for the structures notified in Section 6 declaration within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 27.11.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26895 of 2008 27.11.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26895 of 2008 Date: 27th November, 2009 Between: Palle Yella Reddy & others. .. Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area (I&CAD) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents [1] (2005) 7 SCC 440