HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.11991 of 2009 Date: October 20, 2009 Between: Bodagala Venkatramaiah … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by is Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area (Projects Wing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents * * * ORDER: This Court issued Rule Nisi on 19.6.2009. Counter-affidavit had been filed. 2. Heard Sri G. Buchaiah Goud, learned counsel representing writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in paying ex-gratia passed by respondent No.3 in Ref.A/538/91, dated 08.9.2008, instead of passing an award pertaining to the structure “Kodandarama Swamy Temple” situate in Reach No.15 in S.No.124B, House No.375, Door No.3/123 of Madhavaram village, Vontimitta Manndal, Kadapa District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) and Articles 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pass an award to pay compensation instead of ex- gratia and pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Madhavaram village is one among the submerged villages under foreshore water of Somasila Project. Petitioner’s structure “Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple” is existing in Reach No.15, survey No.124B, House No.375, Door No.3/123, Extent CSR 88-30 and B.R.H. 41.60 sq. mt. of Madhavaram village and it was covered by 4 (1) Notification in G.O.Rt.No.479 I & P (Project Wing) Department, dated 27.3.1981, published in A.P. Gazette Part-I & Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act approved in Govt. Memo No.717(L.A.R.(1)-2/80, dated 27.3.1981 published in A.P. Gazette extraordinary in 208-Vol-2-29-4-81 for the Reach No.15 structures of Madhavaram village. 5. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that in the year 1986 an Award No.7/86, dated 14.9.1986, was passed in respect of petitioner’s structure. For the structure of the petitioner no Award was passed and no compensation was paid. In the meanwhile, a civil suit was filed by the petitioner in O.A.No.262 of 1986 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool, regarding the title deed of the structure in question. The said Court delivered judgment stating that the said temple is not a religious institution within the purview of Section 2 (23) read with Section 2 (27) and religious endowment as defined in Section 2 (22) of the Act 30 of 1987 respectively. Aggrieved by the said order an appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, Kadapa, by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa, in A.S.No.196 of 1987 and it was dismissed. Again a revision was filed before this Court in C.R.P.No.378 of 1990 and it was also dismissed on 18.6.1990. 6. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner gave a representation to respondent No.3 for payment of compensation for his structure “Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple”. Based on his representation, respondent No.3 sent a letter to the E.E., Somasila Project, to furnish estimates to the structure “Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple”. The Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, furnished estimates for Rs.5,00,000/-. Based on estimates, the third respondent prepared ex-gratia P.V. statement and submitted to the Special Collector, G.N.S.S. Kadapa, for approval. The ex-gratia P.V. was approved and released the L.O.C. and paid ex-gratia payment. The respondent vide its proceedings Ref.A/538/91, dated 08.9.2008, sanctioned and paid ex-gratia amount of Rs.6,50,000/- towards the structure “Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple”. 7. It is also averred that the third respondent erred in passing ex- gratia for the structure “Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple” acquired under the Act. The third respondent ought to have passed an Award as per the provisions of the Act. Further specific stand had been taken that the petitioner received the cheque under protest and filed an application under Section 18 of the Act, dated 18.10.2008, as the petitioner was not satisfied with the amounts sanctioned by the third respondent towards compensation for the structures of “Sri Kodandaram Swamy Temple” and requested the respondents to refer the matter to a competent civil court for determination of true and correct market value and the petitioner has an apprehension that the respondent may reject the application under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to a competent civil court on the ground that it is not an Award and it is only an ex-gratia. Hence, the writ petition had been filed. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent several of the averments had been denied. It is stated that the structures “Sri Kodandarama Swamy Temple” was notified under Section 4 (1) of the Act in Reach No.15 of Madhavaram village on 27.3.1981. But, due to dispute between the Endowment Department and the claimants, no amount was awarded and no compensation amount was paid to the said temple in the Award No.7 of 1986. A civil suit was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool, by the Endowment Department pertaining to the said structure. The said Court delivered judgment that the said temple is not a religious institution. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Kadapa, by the Endowment Department in A.S.No.196 of 1987 and it was dismissed. 9. It is also stated that the Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, Division IV, Atmakur, had furnished estimates for Rs.5,00,000/- pertaining to the structure stated supra. Accordingly, a pre-valuation statement towards ex-gratia proposals was prepared and submitted to the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa, for Rs.6,50,000/- and the same was approved. 10. Further specific stand had been taken that the ex-gratia amount was paid to the writ petitioner, as such there is no provision to refer to the matter to civil court under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, the application was not referred to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 11. In the light of the facts and circumstances and also in the light of the language in Section 18 of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief prayed in the writ petition cannot be granted, however, liberty is given to the petitioner to agitate his rights, if any, by appropriate remedy. 12. With the above observation, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: October 20, 2009. BSB