*THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI +WRIT PETITION No.23080 of 2006 %Dated 06-08-2008 # M.Lingeswara Reddy, S/o Basi Reddy, R/o H.No.15/116, Saibabapet, Nandikotkoor, Kurnool District and 13 others. PETITIONERS VERSUS $ the Governemnt of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, social Welfar Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and 3 others. RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. J.Sreenivasa Rao ^Counsel for Respondents: G.P. for Land Acquisition. <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred [1] 2007(1) ALD 339 (DB) 2 2007 (5) ALD 500 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 23080 of 2006 Between: 1 M.Lingeswara Reddy, s/o Basi Reddy, r/o H.No.15/116, Saibabapet, Nandikatkoor, Kurnool District. 2 S.Mujabul Rahaman, s/o S.A.Ghapoor, r/o H.No.9-40, Rajaveedhi, Nandikotkoor, Kurnool District. 3 S.Balaswamy, s/o Lakshmaiah, r/o H.No.15/49, Saibabapet, Nandikotkoor, Kurnool District. 4 M.Visweswara Reddy, s/o Basi Reddy, r/o H.No.15/116-B2, Kota, Nandikotkoor, Kurnool District. 5 A.Sambasiva Reddy, s/o Venkat Reddy, r/o H.No.1/90, Kota, Nandikotkoor, Kurnool District. 6 A.Venkateswara Reddy, s/o Venkat Reddy, r/o H.No.1/90, Kota, Nandikatkoor, Kurnool District. 7 A.Siva Reddy, s/o Venkat Reddy, r/o H.No.1/90, Nandikotkoor, Kota, Kurnool District. 8 A.Gopal Reddy, s/o Venkat Reddy, r/o H.No.1/90, Nandikatkoor, Kota, Kurnool District. 9 A.Krishna Reddy, s/o Venkat Reddy, H.No.1/90, Nandikatkoor, Kota, Kurnool District. 10 B.Srinivas Reddy, s/o Ramana Reddy, r/o Nandikatkoor, Kota, Kurnool District. 11 B.Lakshmi Devamma, w/o late Sai Prasad Reddy, r/o H.No.3/114, Nandikatkoor, Kurnool District. 12 B.Savaramma, d/o Pulla Reddy, r/o Kota, Nandikatkoor, Kurnool District. 13 M.Ramanujamma, w/o Mekala Ramaiah, r/o Rajiv Veedhi, Nandikatkoor, Kurnool District. 14 G.Malla Reddy, s/o Anki Reddy, r/o H.No.2/38, Kota, Nandikatkoor, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 the District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not paying the compensation to the petitioners in respect of their lands an extent of Ac.33.84 cents covered by S.No.775, 776, 777/1, 777/2, and 813/2 situated at Nandikotkur Village & Mandal, Kurnool District, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, violative of Art.21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of the L.A.Act consequently direct the respondents to pass the Award to the petitioners lands an extent of ac.33.84 cents covered by S.No.775, 776, 777/1, 777/2 and 813/2 situated Nandikotkur Village & Mandal, Kurnool District and pay the compensation under the provisions of the L.A.Act immediately and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.SREENIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 23080 of 2006 O R D E R: The petitioners herein claim to be the owners of diﬀerent extents of land situated in Nandikotkur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. It is not in dispute that the said land to an extent of Ac.33.84 cents was utilized by the respondents for the purpose of allotment of house sites to weaker sections in the year 2003. Though no proceedings were taken under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioners were oﬀered compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per acre. However, the beneﬁciaries were put in possession of the land in question without paying even the said amount offered to the petitioners. Thereafter, in pursuance of several representations made by the petitioners requesting the respondents to pay the compensation, a notiﬁcation under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 18-04-2005 followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 20-04-2005. Subsequently, in the month of December 2005, some of the petitioners herein were called upon by the 3rd respondent for settlement of their claims through negotiation committee. In response to the same, though claims were made, no further steps were taken nor any award was passed determining the compensation payable to the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition was ﬁled on 06-11-2006 seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents was arbitrary and illegal. However, subsequently an award was passed on 17-11-2006. In the circumstances, the prayer in the writ petition has been amended seeking a declaration that the award dated 17-11-2006 is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁle by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Kurnool on behalf of the respondents, the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken on 10-12-2003 itself is not disputed. However, it is claimed that the possession was taken with the consent of the petitioners who agreed to receive Rs.90,000/- per acre towards compensation. Subsequently pursuant to the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 18- 04-2005, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, passed a consent award dated 17-11-2006 under Section 11 (2) of the Act. Though the cheques were also made ready on 17.11.2006 towards compensation for the respective extents of lands of the petitioners and notices were issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, on 27-11-2006 informing the same to the petitioners, they refused to receive the compensation. Again notices were issued on 10- 01-2007 requesting the petitioners to receive the compensation, but the petitioners did not turn up. Hence, the allegation that the respondents failed to pay the compensation is incorrect and the writ petition is misconceived. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition at the outset contended that by virtue of the Award dated 17.11.2006, the cause in the writ petition does not survive and that even the amended prayer cannot be granted since it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the consent award. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners while submitting that the award dated 17.11.2006 cannot be termed as a consent award, contended that the said award is liable to be set aside since no opportunity was given to the petitioners to participate in the award enquiry. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act provides for making a consent award by the Collector according to the terms of an agreement entered into by the persons interested in the land. It is true that such award does not require any further enquiry and in such case the claimant will not be entitled to seek a reference to Civil Court for determination of market value. However, the question is at what stage such agreement can be made. To answer the above question, it is necessary to refer to Section 11 of the Act which runs as under : “11.Enquiry and award by Collector:--(1) On the day so ﬁxed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements, made under Section 8, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notiﬁcation under Section 4, sub- section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of— (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him; Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such oﬃcer as the appropriate Government may authorize in this behalf. Provided further it shall be competent for appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section(1) if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisﬁed that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. (3) x x x x ; (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.” A Division Bench of this Court in Guddi Malkapur Co-operative Housing Society, v. L.A.O., HUDA, Hyderabad[1], after interpreting the relevant provisions of the Act read with A.P. Land Acquisition (Negotiations Committee) Rules, 1992 held that an agreement under Section 11(2) of the Act has to be entered only on issuance of notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act but not anterior to the same. In Sarojamma and others v. L.A.O.-cum-RDO, Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar[2] having considered the eﬀect of the words “at any stage of the proceedings” used in sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act, it was held that the said words would mean that award can be passed by the Collector without further enquiry only if the consent is given or agreement is entered into by the land-owner subsequent to the notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and not prior to the initiation of the said proceedings. From the ratio laid down in the above cases, it is clear that a consent award under Section 11 (2) of the Act can be made by the Collector on being satisﬁed that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award only where such agreement has been entered into by the persons interested in the land after the proceedings are initiated under the Land Acquisition Act i.e., after the notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act is published. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioners herein agreed to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per acre when the advance possession of the land was taken on 10.12.2003. Long thereafter the notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 18.04.2005. Hence, it is not open to the Collector to rely upon such agreement entered into prior to notification while passing the impugned award. Consequently, the impugned award cannot be treated as a consent award under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. Hence, the petitioners if not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded can seek reference to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioners to make an appropriate application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in which event the respondents shall refer the claim of the petitioners to the Civil Court within a period of four weeks thereafter in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 06-08-2008 KLP Lr copy to be marked. [1] 2007 (1) ALD 339 (DB) [2] 2007 (5) ALD 500