HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITON No.9688 OF 2009 ORDER: A notification, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 31-07-2000 proposing to acquire a vast extent of land in Kommuru Village, Nandalur Mandal, Kadapa District for the purpose of Somasila Project. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14-08-2000. The lands of the petitioners were also included in the notification. After conducting detailed enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer, the 3rd respondent herein, passed an award on 20-04-2001. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the existence of structures on their lands were noticed by the 3rd respondent, he has not awarded any compensation for them. 2. The petitioners approached this Court on earlier occasion in relation to the same grievance by filing W.P. No.20062 of 2006, complaining that the 3rd respondent was not dealing with the structures at all. The writ petition was disposed of on 07-12-2007 directing that the respondents shall pass an award after conducting due enquiry within a period of two months. Complaining that the direction was not complied with, the petitioners filed Contempt Case No.611 of 2008. The Contempt Case was closed leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue further remedies. It is in this context that the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 30-06-2008, holding that the structures made by the petitioners upon their agricultural lands are unauthorized and trivial in nature. It was also mentioned that they were made after initiation of the proceedings under the Act. The petitioners challenge the said proceedings. 3. The respondents filed a counter – affidavit stating that the petitioners are residents of Konapuram Village whereas the structures are said to have been made in their fields in Kommuru Village. It is also mentioned that none of the structures were assigned house numbers, much less the petitioners were shown as residents of those structures in their voters list. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. As observed earlier, the award was passed way back on 20-04-2001. In case, the petitioners are of the view that the compensation paid to them is not adequate or that an item of property movable or immovable was excluded in the context of awarding compensation, they ought to have filed applications under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioners did not choose that remedy. When the Act provides for a time-framed remedy, the petitioners cannot bye-pass the same and approach this Court. Further, the so called structures, mentioned in the Award are so trivial, that hardly any compensation can be awarded. For example, in respect of one of the petitioners, the structure was an improvised thatched shed. Obviously, that was put up on the land to provide shade to the workers at the time of rest. It cannot be said to be a structure to be awarded any compensation. The petitioners were very much at liberty to remove the thatches in case their lands were being sub-merged. The matter has been prolonged beyond a point, by filing series of writ petitions and it needs to be given a quietus. It is clearly held that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation for the so called structures upon the land at this length of time. 6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J April 07, 2011 KTL