THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24514 of 2008 O R D E R: An extent of Acs.2.00 of land in survey No.75 of Teegalapahad Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, owned by the petitioner, was acquired for the purpose of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, the fourth respondent herein. Notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘Act’) was issued. A consent award was passed on 07.03.2008 and the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.1,78,307/-. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 12.04.2008, with a prayer to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act to a Civil Court as regards the compensation for 450 teak trees and 3 neem trees. The petitioner valued them at Rs.25,200/- and Rs.774/- respectively. Through Memo, dated 29.04.2008, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer/Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, the ﬁrst respondent herein, rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the compensation was paid under consent award and the question of referring the matter to a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act does not arise. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was acquired for the beneﬁt of the fourth respondent- company. Notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published and an award was passed on 07.03.2008. The petitioner does not dispute that he gave consent for the amount awarded to him. The subsequent representation for referring the matter to a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act as regards the value of the trees cannot be acted upon. The compensation for an acquired land takes in its fold not only the market value of the land, but also the structures thereon. The consent for an award was comprehensive in nature and it cannot be split into the one for land and the other for trees. The ﬁrst respondent had issued a proper reply to the petitioner and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.11.2008. kdl