IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14028 of 2008 Between: 1.Katram Narayana Reddy S/o.Raghava Reddy R/o.Roshamagari Veedhi Kodad Town and (M) Nalgonda District 2.Katram Nirmala W/o.Narayana Reddy R/o.Roshamagari Veedhi Kodad Town and (M) Nalgonda District 3.Katram Rajasekhar Reddy W/o.Narayana Reddy R/o.Roshamagari Veedhi Kodad Town and (M) Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.The Special Collector(LA) Dr.K.L.Rao Sagar Projects Nalgonda,Nalgonda District 2.The Special Deputy Collector(LA) Pulichinthala Project Unit-VI Kodad Nalgonda District 3.The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration A.P Hyderabad .....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 and appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Award No.B/30 (Court Case)/2005 dt.30-11-2007 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently set aside the Award No.B/30(Court Case)/2005 dt.30-11-2007 passed by the Respondent in so far as the petitioners lands i.e land to an extent of Ac 0-0.5 acres in Sy.No.249, land to an extent of Ac.2.14 Gts of land in Sy.No.246 and Ac.37 Gts in Sy.No.249, total extent of Ac 3-11 gts land to an extent of Ac 3-19 Gts 3-19 Gts of land in Sy.No.247 at Reballe (V) of Mellacheru(M) Nalgonda District are concerned. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.S.NANDA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.14028 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the impugned Award No.B/30 (Court Case)/2005, dated 30.11.2007, passed by the second respondent under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act, and consequentially to set aside the same insofar as the petitioners’ lands i.e., Ac.0-0.5 guntas in Sy.No.249, Ac.2.14 guntas in Sy.No.246, and Ac.0-37 guntas in Sy.No.249, total extent of Ac 3-11 guntas, land to an extent of Ac.3-19 guntas of land in Sy.No.247 at Reballe (V) of Mellacheru (M) Nalgonda District are concerned. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, and having perused the material on record, it is clear that the grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the second respondent. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the second respondent committed a grave error in not awarding compensation for the fish ponds erected by the petitioners on the lands in question. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that denial of compensation to the ponds existing on the land acquired in spite of the clarifications issued by the Government from time to time that structural valuation shall also be taken into consideration while passing award is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. At the outset, it is to be noted that an efficacious remedy is provided under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which provides for a reference to a Civil Court for determination of the objection raised by the awardee to the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is also relevant to note that the burden to prove that the compensation awarded is inadequate lies on the claimant himself and such a question requires consideration on appreciation of evidence that may be adduced in support of the claimant’s objection to the amount of compensation awarded. It is neither possible nor permissible for this Court to enquire into such questions of fact and arrive at a conclusion while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, in the light of the remedy available to the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act, it is not open to them to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. V Spl. Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely[1], contended that it is always open to the petitioners to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even against an award made under Section 11 of the Act. It is to be noted that in the said decision, it was made clear that when the award made under Section 11 of the Collector is vitiated by fraud, collusion or corruption, the beneficiary is entitled to challenge it in the writ petition. This is not a case where the petitioners challenged the award on the ground of fraud, collusion or corruption. As noticed above, the only grievance of the petitioners is that the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award, failed to take into consideration the valuation of fish ponds existing on the land in question. In other words, they are only aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is stated that as a matter of fact, the petitioners have already made an application on 07.01.2008 seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. If that be so, the respondents shall consider the same and take necessary further steps following due process of law. No costs. _______________ 02.07.2008 VGB [1] AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1004