IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1888 of 2003 Between: 1 T.Srinivas Rao s/o T.Rajaiah R/o Mattewada., Warangal District. 2 P.Annapurna w/o P.Venkata Rama Narsimha Sastry R/o Mattewada., Warangal District. 3 P.Venkata Rama Narsimha Sastry s/o Anantha Padmanabha Sastry R/o Mattuwada., Warangal District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Dist.Collector & Magistrate Warangal District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer., Warangal. 3 Chief Engineer Constructions., Railway Nilayam.,South Central Railway., Secunderabad. 4 Divisional Engineer., Railway Electrification.,Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the fourth respondent in not complying with the proceedings in Rc.No.G1/B3/9404/97, dt.25/10/2002 of the ﬁrst respondent and in delaying the payment of interest upon the awarded amounts to the awardees, as illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and further direct the fourth respondent to comply with the proceedings in Rc.No.G1/B3/9404/97, dt.25/10/2002, of the ﬁrst respondent for payment of the interest on the awarded amounts to the awardees. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNURI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION FOR R1 and R2. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1888 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.4 in complying with proceedings, dated 25.10.2002, of respondent No.1 whereby he requested respondent No.4 to pay amount of Rs.10,75,388/- towards interest for the delayed payment under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 12 (b) of A.P.Land Acquisition (Negotiations Committee) Rules, 1992 (for short ‘the Rules’). 2. Heard Sri T.Amarnath Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for R1 and R2. 3. Notiﬁcation, under Section 4(1) of the Act, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners was published on 23.01.1996. Even prior to the publication of the said notiﬁcation, advance possession was taken in the year 1990. The requisitioning department, namely; South Central Railway, Secunderabad, deposited the compensation amount on 19.02.2002. On 06.04.2002, consent award, under Section 11 (2) of the Act, was passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, and on the same day, compensation was paid to the petitioners. 4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Section 34 of the Act and contended that, since possession was taken in the year 1990, the petitioners are entitled to payment of interest till 06.04.2002, the date on which compensation was paid by the respondents. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that under Rule 12 (b) of the Rules, if there is delay in payments after settlement package deal, interest as provided under Section 34 of the Act shall be paid from the due date. 6. It is not in dispute that immediately on passing of the award, payment of compensation was made to the petitioners on the same day. Under the above mentioned Rule, it is only when payment was not made after settlement, that interest is payable from the due date till the date of payment. 7. In my considered view, respondent No.1 has not guided himself properly in thinking that Section 34 of the Act in terms applies to this case. He evidently overlooked the fact that a consent award was passed under Section 11(2) of the Act, on the basis of the consent given by the land owners. Under Rule 12(a) of the Rules, the quantum of compensation as arrived at by the interested persons and requisitioning department before the Negotiations Committee under the package deal shall be inclusive of market value/additional market value/solatium/cost of the damages/valuation of structures/trees and interest etc., as are allowed under the Land Acquisition Act and Government Orders. The very fact that the petitioners agreed for a particular sum as compensation, on the basis of which award was passed, clearly suggests that the said sum includes even interest from the date of taking possession and no further interest can be claimed under Section 34 of the Act. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP No. 2461 of 2003 is dismissed as infructuous. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 26.08.2008 v v