THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1628 of 2009 & WRIT PETITION No.19828 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner is a group of Temples situated in Lalapet area of Guntur District. It was endowed with vast extent of property by the devotees over the period. As in the case of any other endowment property, the land became soft target for the land grabbers and they in turn had sufficient blessings of the officials of the Government in Revenue and Social Welfare Departments. An extent of Acs.22.52 cents of land in Survey Nos.196 and 197 was so grabbed and the Government has chosen to grant pattas and provide amenities to the occupants of the land. Repeated efforts made by the petitioner for payment of compensation did not fructify. The notifications that were issued earlier were permitted to lapse. The petitioner filed W.P.No.19828 of 2008 with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay compensation. In W.P.M.P.No.25902 of 2008, this Court passed an order on 12.09.2008 after hearing both the parties, directing the respondents to initiate action within one month for acquisition of the land or in the alternative, to pay damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. The contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents have failed to implement the directions issued by this Court. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 24.10.2008 and ultimately, an award was passed on 24.06.2010. Sri M.Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents and in particular the Land Acquisition Officer made every attempt to defeat the rights of the petitioner as well as the orders of this Court. He contends that the award, dated 24.06.2010, is illegal and untenable on the face of it. He submits that though no consent as such was given subsequent to the publication of the notification, the award was passed as though there exists a consent and a paltry sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre was awarded without any statutory benefits. He places reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Guddi Malkapur Cooperative Housing Society Vs. L.A.O., HUDA, Hyderabad[1]. Sri Harinath Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submits that a specific reference was made to the consent given on behalf of the petitioner and if the petitioner has any grievance vis-à-vis the award, it can seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, W.P.No.19828 of 2008 also has been taken up for hearing. With the passing of the award, the substantial grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and any complaint as to the failure to follow the prescribed procedure or inadequacy of compensation needs to be addressed in the reference that may be made under Section 18 of the Act. Vast extent of the land, owned by the petitioner, in an important locality, was taken away by the Government, though not directly. Instead of protecting the interests of the petitioner, the forcible occupants of the land were extended the facilities and pattas were granted. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to pay the compensation. Recognizing their obligation, they have initially issued notifications under the Act. However, they were permitted to lapse. In response to the interim directions issued by this Court, the respondents have published notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 24.10.2008 and passed an award on 24.06.2010. A perusal of the award discloses that it has several abnormalities. Reference was made to a consent said to have been given in the year 1982. It is not out of place to mention that the Government framed the A.P. Land Acquisition (Negotiations Committee) Rules, 1992. A detailed procedure is prescribed for constitution of a Negotiation Committee and the recording of the consent. No such steps were taken. In the judgment referred to supra, the Division Bench of this Court held that it is only when negotiations take place, subsequent to the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of that Act, that a consent award can be passed. In the instant case, no negotiations were held after the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 24.10.2008. Hence, the very basis for the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed on the assumption that there existed a consent is invalid. He refused to award the statutory benefits, such as solatium, additional market value, etc. Two alternatives are available. The first is to remand the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer for fresh consideration and disposal. The second is to permit the petitioner to raise all the grounds as to the fixation of the market value and extension of other statutory benefits in the reference under Section 18 of the Act itself. In view of the fact that several decades have elapsed ever since the possession of the land was taken, the second course appears to be better. Hence, the contempt case and the writ petition are disposed of with the following directions: (a) The award, dated 24.06.2010, passed by the respondents shall be treated as the one passed without consent of the petitioner, in view of the judgment referred to supra; (b) The Land Acquisition Officer shall refer the matter to the competent civil Court within a period of four (4) weeks from today; (c) It shall be open to the petitioner to adduce evidence as regards the market value of the land as it prevailed on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act i.e. 24.10.2008 and the trial Court shall determine the market value based on the evidence placed before it; (d) The petitioner shall be entitled to be extended the other benefits, since it is held that there did not exist any consent for the determination of the compensation; and (e) The civil Court shall take up the matter on priority basis and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of registration of the O.P. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.09.2010. kdl [1] 2007 (1) ALT 547 (D.B.)