IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16014 of 2006 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.Ramul R/o.Ananthareddy guda Shamshabad, R.R.District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquistion) International Airport, Shamshabad, R.R.District 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy district .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein passing the award under Sec.11(1) of the Land Acquistion Act 1894 by the 1st respondent in his Proc.No.B/792/2000-2001 dated 6.11.2002 pertaining to the land admeasuirng Ac.03.09 guntas situated in S.No.52 in Gollapallu kalan, Samshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District of the petitioners herein in without considering the claim petition submitted by them as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents herein to pass an award under section 11(2) of the Land Acquistion Act,1894 by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16014 of 2006 ORDER: The 2n d respondent issued a notiﬁcation, dated 22.03.2000, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire various extents of land, for the purpose of establishing an International Airport. They included the land of Ac.3.09 guntas in Survey No.52 and certain other extents in Survey Nos.56 and 60 of Gollapally Kalan Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published and the 2nd respondent has taken up the award enquiry. On the basis of the report submitted by a Committee, an oﬀer was made for passing a consent award, in case, the land owners agree for a particular amount towards compensation. The petitioners state that they are the owners of the land in Survey No.52 and they have submitted an application on 01.11.2002 expressing their willingness to receive the compensation, without any protest. Their grievance is that despite their oﬀer, the 1 st respondent has passed an award, under Section 11(1) of the Act on 06.11.2002, instead of including this land also in the consent award passed under Section 11(2) of the Act on 04.07.2003. The petitioners contend that though the application was ﬁled in time, and the claim squarely ﬁt into the parameters evolved by the State Level Committee, the 1st respondent did not include Survey No.52 in the award passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. The respondents ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, opposing the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that the application was not ﬁled within time, and at any rate, the succession certiﬁcate itself was ﬁled much after the last date. It is also stated that the land was dealt with in an award, passed under Section 11(1) of the Act and in that view of the matter, there was no possibility of its being dealt with under the consent award. There is a serious dispute as to whether the petitioners submitted their application, before the 1st respondent, for passing an award under Section 11(2) of the Act viz., consent award. While the petitioners assert that the application was ﬁled on 01.11.2002, the respondents dispute the same and state that even the succession certiﬁcate was obtained by the petitioners only on 30.12.2002. Even assuming that the application was ﬁled in time and the claim of the petitioners ﬁt into the parameters evolved by the State Level Committee, this Court ﬁnds it diﬃcult to accede to the request o the petitioners. The reason is that by its very nature, a consent award can be passed, only when the parties thereto viz., the claimants on the one hand and the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, on the other, agree for a particular course of action. On his part, the 1st respondent stated certain reasons for not acceding to the request. Even assuming that the reasons are untenable, either on facts or in law, the fact remains that he cannot be compelled to pass an award under Section 11(2) of the Act. Another reason is that the land in Survey No.52 was already subject matter of award, dated 06.11.2002. That being the case, the land shall not, at all, be available to be dealt with under the consent award. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, left open to the petitioners to work out their remedies, vis-à-vis the award, dated 06.11.2002, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 11.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16014 of 2006 Date: 11.09.2008 JSU