IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11422 of 2004 Between: Madduvalasa Jalasaya Bhusekarana Bhaditha Rythu Samkshema Sangham Bhagammapeta Village, Vangara Mandal, rep by President Reddi Rama Murthy s/o Rami Naidu R/o Bhagammapeta Village, Vangara Mandal Srikakulam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Rajam, Srikakulam District 2 The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Secretary, Land Acquisition, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RAMALINGA SWAMY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, ﬁled this writ petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay diﬀerential compensation to the land owners under Award No.7 of 1998, dated 10.12.1998 relating to Devakivada Block No.5 and Award Nos.5 and 6 of 1999, dated 14.05.1999 relating to Sriharipuram Block Nos.2 and 4 of Madduvalasa Reservoir Project, in pursuance of proceedings, dated 01.06.1999 of the District Level Negotiation Committee (for short ‘the Committee’). It sought for an alternative relief of referring the disputes under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The facts present a truly peculiar situation. Various lands situated in villages, such as, Sriharipuram, Devakivada, Vangara, Patuvardhanam of Srikakulam District, were acquired for construction of a project known as Madduvalasa Reservoir Project in Vangara Mandal of Srikakulam District. The above mentioned three awards were passed on 10.12.1998 and 14.05.1999 ﬁxing the market value of Rs.24,000/- per acre for wet lands and Rs.23,000/- for dry lands in Devakivada Block No.5, and Rs.27,400/- per acre for wet lands in Sriharipuram Block Nos.2 and 4. After the said awards were passed, the Committee was constituted by the State Government and it negotiated with all the landowners, whose lands were acquired for the above-mentioned project. It is not in dispute that the lands covered by the above-mentioned awards were also included in the proceedings before the Committee. The Committee agreed for a negotiated rate of Rs.44,000/- per acre for wet lands and Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry lands in Devakivada Block No.5 and Rs.52,500/- and Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet lands in Sriharipuram Block Nos.2 and 5 respectively. When the amounts under the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer were oﬀered to the petitioners, they received the same under protest. In respect of the lands for which awards were not passed, the land owners were paid compensation in accordance with the negotiated rates arrived at by the Committee. As the petitioners were not paid the diﬀerential compensation, the members of the petitioner society approached the Mandal Legal Services Committee and evidently, the said proceedings were closed on 26.05.2001 on the ground that the landowners were not present. As the members of the petitioner society were not paid the amount as ﬁxed by the Committee, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Rajam, Srikakulam District, it is averred that the members of the petitioner society received payments under the three awards under protest and initiated proceedings before the Lok Adalath for payment of diﬀerential amount, which were closed in view of their absence. It is also averred that they failed to ﬁle claim petitions for reference under Section18 of the Act; that the then Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, who is the Convener of the Committee erroneously included the lands covered by the three awards in the proceedings before the Committee on 01.06.1999 and that when once the awards are passed, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer has no power or jurisdiction to recommend for payment of higher compensation and the above-mentioned three awards have become ﬁnal and conclusive. As regards the ﬁrst part of the relief claimed by the petitioner society, namely, payment of diﬀerential amount between the compensation paid under the awards and the market value ﬁxed by the Committee and paid to the other land owners, in my considered view, the members of the petitioner society are not entitled to such a relief. Under the provisions of the Act, the landowners are entitled for payment of compensation as determined by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. If the landowners are not satisﬁed with the compensation ﬁxed by the Collector, the only remedy available to them is to seek reference of their claim for higher compensation under Section 18 of the Act. Admittedly, even before the Committee considered ﬁxation of market value through negotiations, the three awards were passed. Even if the cases of the members of the petitioner society were also considered by the Committee in its proceedings, dated 01.06.1999, no legal sanctity can be attached to such act, because, in the scheme of the Act, the award of the Collector attains ﬁnality, unless the competent Civil Court enhances the compensation in a reference made under Section 18 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the members of the petitioner society, whose lands were acquired under the above mentioned three awards, are not entitled to seek a direction to the respondents to pay higher compensation in terms of the alleged decision of the Committee. As regards the second part of the relief claimed by the petitioner society, under proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act, the application for reference to the Civil Court can be made, if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award and in other cases, within two months from the date of service of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is not clear from the pleadings of the parties, whether the members of the petitioner society were present at the time of passing of the awards. Assuming that they were not present, they are entitled to ﬁle applications for reference within two (2) months from the date of receipt of notices under Section 12(2) of the Act. Admittedly, the members of the petitioner society received their compensation under protest and were obviously under the mistaken notion that they will be paid compensation according to the value ﬁxed by the Committee in the meeting held on 01.06.1999. Had the Committee not considered the cases of the members of the petitioner society, they would, in all probability, have sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The peculiar circumstances of the case, as noted above, obviously made them not to apply to respondent No.1 for reference under Section 18 of the Act. As they were not paid the compensation as ﬁxed by the Committee, they have approached the Mandal Legal Services Committee in the year 2000 for payment of enhanced compensation. In the face of the above-mentioned facts, if the members of the petitioner society are denied the opportunity of seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, grave injustice will be caused to them because, admittedly, in respect of similar lands situated in the vicinity, the Committee ﬁxed higher compensation. Indeed, there is no rationale in appointing the Committee to ﬁx compensation in respect of a part of the lands acquired for the same purpose and situated in the same Mandal, while excluding another part of the lands from such negotiations and passing of an award even before the Committee considered the issue of ﬁxation of compensation. Respondents indulged in invidious discrimination in respect of the members of the petitioner society, who, admittedly, are similarly situated to those persons, whose lands were also acquired, but were paid higher compensation on the basis of negotiated price ﬁxed by the Committee. No explanation is oﬀered as to why the awards were passed in respect of the lands of the members of the petitioner society alone and they were denied the higher compensation. In these extraordinary circumstances, I feel that interests of justice would be met, if the members of the petitioner society are permitted to make their applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act to respondent No.1 within a period of six (6) weeks from today. If such applications are ﬁled by them within the time stipulated above, respondent No.1 shall refer the same to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed in part. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd AUGUST, 2008. kvni