IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1619 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/09/2008 in WP NO : 16014 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Smt.Moinnunnisa Begum D/o.gulam Ahmed Saheb R/o.1-7-55, Shums Manzil, S.D.Road, Secunderabad 2 Mekam Anjaiah S/o.M.Potti Jangaiah R/o. Ananthareddy Guda Shamshabad Mandal, R.R.District 3 Mekam Yadaiah @ Yadhagiri S/o.Ramulu, R/o.Ananthareddy guda Shamshabad, R.R.District ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquistion) International Airport, Shamshabad, R.R.District 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.K.KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The appellants who are the original petitioners claim to be the owners of some land, which had been acquired by the respondents- Government authorities. The case of the appellants before the learned single Judge was that respondent No.2, namely, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District ought to have passed an award under Section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), as the appellants were agreed to a particular price and particular terms. The request made by the appellants-original petitioners was not accepted by the Collector and ultimately an award was made under Section 11 (2) of the Act. After hearing the learned Advocates and after considering the legal position, the learned single Judge had rejected the petition and being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 11-9-2008, this appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Advocates. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was justified in rejecting the petition for the reason that without the consent of the Collector there cannot be any award under Section 11(2) of the Act, simply because the appellants had made a request to pass an award under Section 11(2) of the Act, it could not be obligatory on the part of the Collector or the Government authorities to pass an award under Section 11 (2) of the Act. Section 11 (2) of the Act pertains to consent award and without consent of both the parties, the award cannot be passed. Section 11(2) of the Act reads as under: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1() if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested for the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.” A bare perusal of the said Section denotes that first of all the Collector should be satisfied and it depends upon the discretion of the Government authorities to pass an award. In the instant case, the Collector was not satisfied and, therefore, he was not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of passing of the award under Section 11 (2) of the Act and, therefore, he did not pass an award under Section 11 (2) of the Act. Learned Advocate has referred to the judgment delivered in the case of Sarojamma v. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-RDO, Nagarkurnool[1]. The said judgment would not render any help to the appellants. In that case the owners of the land had given their consent even before notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act has been issued. The facts referred to in the said judgment are different and, therefore, we do not see any reason to consider the said judgment. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. __________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 5th December, 2008. GRR [1] 2008(1) ALT 23.