THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.5908 of 2007 Dated 11th July, 2011 Between: Mettu Basava Reddy and others …Petitioners And The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Sree Rama Murthy Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in referring the claims of the petitioners for payment of enhanced compensation to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. The lands admeasuring Ac.1.06 guntas and Ac.1.10 guntas in Survey No.450/1 and 460/1/2 of Paloncha Revenue Village belonging to the petitioners were acquired by the respondents. The petitioners felt aggrieved by non-reference of disputes raised by them under Section 18 of the Act to the competent civil Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is inter alia stated that the petitioners have consented for passing of an award and therefore, they are not entitled for reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act. On the last occasion, when the learned counsel for the petitioners has disputed this averment contained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, this Court has adjourned the case to enable the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition to produce the record. Accordingly, the record has been produced at the hearing today. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners have signed both Form-III and also affidavit typed on a stamp paper in Form- IV consenting for receiving the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,80,000/- per acre and to accept a sum of Rs.6,72,000/- as total compensation payable to them. Sri P.Sree Ram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly conceded after perusal of the record that in the face of the consent given by the petitioners, he is not in a position to persuade this Court to refer the dispute to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.7550 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th July, 2011 VGB