IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12335 of 2008 Between: Muppala Bhagavan narayana Raju S/o Sri Rama Raju R/o Armenipadu Village, Ozili Mandal, nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Collector, Gudur Division, Nellore District. 3 The District collector Nellore District, Nellore. .....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 a Writ or order or a direction one more in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing the award purportedly under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 during the acquisition process of agricultural lands situate in Survey No. 286/1, Arimenipadu Village, Ozili Mandal, Nellore District, admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1-70 cents belonging to the petitioner, as illegal arbitrary, lacking application of mind and in gross violation of Articles 14,19,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set a side the award in Award No. 40/07-08 dated 11-2- 2008 and further direct the Respondents to pass a fresh award in accordance with the Provisions of the Act 1 of 1894 by taking all the relevant factors like trees and wells also into consideration and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. SIVARAJU SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.12335 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of agricultural land situated in Sy.No.286/1 of Arimenipadu Village, Ozili Mandal, Nellore District admeasuring Ac.1.70 cents. The said land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for a public purpose namely providing house sites under 7th branch canal. Pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published in the month of October, 2007, an award was passed by the 2nd respondent on 11.2.2008 fixing a total compensation of Rs.2,79,130/- for the lands belonging to the petitioners which included Rs.24,130/- towards the value of the trees standing thereon. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the said Award dated 11.2.2008 is arbitrary, illegal and in gross violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same and direct the respondents to pass a fresh award taking all the relevant factors into consideration. The petitioner states that the market value as per the records of the Registration Office is Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and in fact he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. It is also claimed that he had planted more than 100 teak trees which are about 15 years old apart from various fruit bearing trees on the land in question and therefore on a request made by him the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 22.1.2008 called for Tree Enumeration List from the Divisional Forest Officer which is yet to be received. It is alleged that without waiting for the report of the Divisional Forest Officer and without taking into consideration the value of the tree growth, the 2nd respondent had passed the impugned award fixing a paultry amount of Rs.24,130/- towards the value of the trees. It is contended that the said Award dated 11.02.2008 which was passed without application of mind to the value of the tree growth standing on the lands in question as well as various other factors as provided under Section 23 of the Act is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and the respondents shall be directed to pass a fresh award. As could be seen from the contentions of the petitioner noted above, it is clear that the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded towards the tree growth standing on the land in question. If that be so, an efficacious remedy is available 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 petitioner under Section 18 of the Act, it is not open to him 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. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy available under the Act. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.06.2008 gbs