IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 6981 of 2006 Between: Kundla Chinabbigari Obul Reddy S/o. Yella Reddy R/o. Bandarupally Village, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore at Rajampet, Kadapa District. 2 The District Collector, Kadapa District. 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, I & CAD, Secretariat, Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 The Executive Engineer, Division-1, SSP, Kadapa 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 issue an appropriate writ or order, direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned in-action of the respondent No.1 in not passing the award and not paying the compensation is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of provisions of Land Acquisition Act, Art.300-A of the constitution and principles of the natural justice and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to pass an award for the structure of the petitioner (SPR.N.280) existing as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dt. 17-9-2002 and amended by addendum dt. 11-11-2003. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 6981 of 2006 O R D E R: Huge extents of lands were acquired by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including that of the petitioner herein. The only grievance of the petitioner is that though the lands and structures thereon were notified under Section 4(1) of the Act and also under Section 6 declaration, Award is not being passed till date on the ground that there is some variation in the existence of the structures and the notification. It appears, the expression ‘variation’, according to the respondents is, as to the nature of construction. For this controversy or variation, the respondents could not have refused to pass the Award. The Award is required to be passed under Section 11 as per the details available in the Notification under Section 4(1) or declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this regard, the law is well settled by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Jaipal Singh and others[1], wherein it is said: “If the shops were constructed prior to the publication of the impugned notification under Section 4(1), necessary compensation has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 23. In case the construction came to be made after notification under Section 4(1), necessarily they cannot claim any compensation”. The above principle would indicate that the petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation to the land and the structures raised thereon, as was available on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, merely on the ground that there is some variation as to the nature of the structures available as on the date of notification and as on the date of consideration for passing of the Award, refusing to pass the Award is arbitrary and illegal. Under those circumstances, the respondents are directed to pass Award by taking into consideration the land and the structures existing thereon as on the date of Section 4(1) notification and pass appropriate Award, as per law, after hearing the petitioner and other interested parties. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 2-3-2009. Note: C.C. in a week. (BO) MVB. [1] (AIR 1997 SC 452)