ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the Award No.6 of 2008, dated 12.03.2008 passed by the third respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts, as can be borne out from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are that land admeasuring Hectares 1-27-00 situated in Garlapadu Village of Hiramandalam Mandal in Srikakulam District was acquired by the Government for formation of Hiramandalam Reservoir in Phase-II of Stage-II under Sri B.R.R. (Vamsadhara) Project Scheme. A Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was published in the District Gazette on 31.07.2007. In view of urgency, enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. A draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. Names of the petitioners and the extents of land in their possession were shown in the Gazette. The third respondent-Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer obtained no objection certificate from the major sons and daughters of the petitioners to enable the Government to pay compensation in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were awaiting notices from the third respondent for determination of compensation. But, the third respondent did not issue any notices to the petitioners and no opportunity was given to the petitioners by the third respondent before determining the quantum of compensation. The third respondent, without conducting any enquiry, passed the Award impugned, behind back of the petitioners, which is illegal and arbitrary, and the Award is not served on the petitioners. At the request of the petitioners, the District Collector directed the fourth respondent- Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Division, P.W.D., Srikakulam for revaluation of the structures in the lands. The Joint Collector, Srikakulam took a view that there were irregularities in the valuation of the value of the structures. Thereafter, the petitioners obtained copy of the Award under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the property of the petitioners was not taken over till date as the project work is going on in a slow pace due to paucity of funds. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on the specific instructions of the second respondent, the respondents 4 and 5 conducted survey and estimated the value of the property as more than 10 times the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer; that the value of the property relating to the petitioners acquired by the Government is fixed very meagerly, and hence, he prays to quash the impugned Award. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that after following the due procedure, the Award was passed, and that if the petitioners are aggrieved, they can make an application to the Collector so as to refer the mater as required under Section 18 of the Act, to the competent civil court for proper adjudication of the compensation, if any, payable to the petitioners. 5. As seen from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the grievance of the petitioners is only with regard to determination of quantum of compensation in respect of the structures existing on the land acquired as on the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. There cannot be any dispute that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that a land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a Notification to that effect shall be published in the official Gazette. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made that the land in question is needed for the public purpose. Thereafter, notices to the persons interested were given by the Government with an intention to take possession of the land. Thereafter, after following the procedure contemplated under Section 11 of the Act, an Award was passed. 6. Under Section 18 of the Act, any person interested, who has not accepted the Award, may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the value by the Court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Sub-section (2) thereof deals with grounds on which objection to the award is taken. The proviso thereto says that every such application shall 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 six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. 7. It is well established that the remedy provided for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one and the High Court has always discretion to refuse to grant such a relief in certain circumstances, even though a legal right might have been infringed. Availability of an alternative remedy is one of such considerations which the High Court may take into account in refusing to exercise the jurisdiction. When an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners, they should pursue that remedy and may not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus. Further, where a statute creates a right and also prescribes a remedy or procedure for the enforcement of that right, resort must be had to the said statutory remedy before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Competent civil court is empowered to estimate the value of the structures found on the land acquired by the Government for public purpose. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that value of the structures on the land acquired is 10 times over and above the value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. Necessary evidence has to be adduced before the competent civil court for the purpose of estimation of the value of the structures. That question of fact cannot be determined and decided by this Court exercising the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Therefore, the petitioners are given liberty to file necessary application before the District Collector, subject to limitation viz. under proviso to Sub-Section (2) to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, along with a petition to condone delay, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the petitioners must show sufficient cause for the delay, if any, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in making the application. 10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th April, 2011 LMV/DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.9404 OF 2011 Date:15-04-2011 LMV/DRK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.9404 of 2011 Date of Order: 15.04.2011 Between: Gedela Rama Raju & others …Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Secretary and others …Respondents The Court made the following :