HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.13737 of 2010 Date : 8-12-2011 Between: Gurajala Krishna Murthy s/o. Anjaiah .. Petitioner And The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P. Nagendra Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri K.S. Gopala Krishna The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in permitting respondent No.4 to cut down 41 trees in the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.0-32 cents, comprised in R.S.No.52/2A and 125/1A of Nawabpet village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District, without assessing the value of the trees, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of the above mentioned land. The said land, along with other lands were acquired for formation of by-pass road f o r National Highway at Nawabpet village. An award was passed on 27-2-2007 wherein certain trees were also valued for payment of compensation. After receiving the compensation, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 claiming compensation for 43 trees which were not included in the award. Respondent No.2 referred the petitioner’s claim to Horticulture and Forest Departments. The Horticulture Department has reported the existence of seven mango trees in R.S.No.52/A and one coconut tree and one amla tree in R.S.No.125/1. The petitioner pleaded that non- payment of compensation for certain trees which were in existence at the time of acquisition of land is illegal. In the counter-aﬃdavit, while admitting that a report was called for from the Forest and Horticulture Departments, respondent No.1 stated that if the petitioner felt aggrieved by non-payment of compensation for certain trees, he should have sought for reference of dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") and that he cannot make a claim after allowing the award to become ﬁnal and receiving the compensation fixed under the award. After hearing Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader Land Acquisition, I do not ﬁnd any reason to interfere in the dispute raised by the petitioner. Under Section 18 of the Act, if the owner of the land or any person interested therein, has not accepted the award inter alia with respect to ﬁxation of compensation, he is entitled to seek reference of dispute to the Civil Court within the time ﬁxed under sub-section (2) thereof. If the petitioner felt that certain trees were not included in the award, he should have availed the said remedy. Once the award is made, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer becomes functus oﬃcio and he has no power to modify the award, except to the extent of correction of clerical or arithmetical errors, under Section 13-A of the Act. Having failed to seek reference of the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for modiﬁcation of the award and payment of any sum higher than what is ﬁxed in the award, as this Court does not sit in appeal over the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officers. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.17311 and 11933 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 8-12-2011 AM