IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 572 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/02/2008 in WP NO : 27510 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Bokka Venkateswara Rao, S/o satyanarayana, Residing at Chinaranganipalem, Hamlet of Gonipudi, Bhimavaram, Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 Bhima Nadham Manikyamma, W/o Krishna Murthy, Residing at Vessakoderupalem, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 Chellaboyina Chinasamudram, s/o Somanna, Residing at Chinaranganipalem, Hamlet of Gunipudi, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 Bokka Subba Rao, s/o A.Satyanarayana, Residing at China Ranganipalem, Hamlet of Gunipudi, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. 5 Veeravalli Venkayamma, W/o late Satyanarayana, Residing at China Ranganipalem, Hamlet of Gunipudi, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. 6 Madduri Meenakshamma, W/o Satyanarayana, Hindu Residing at Bundarapunta Road, Gunipudi, Bhimavaram, west Godavari District. 7 Gadigogula Seeta Mahalakshmi, W/o Rama Murthy, Residing at Bandarapunta Road, Gunipudi, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 8 Guddati Jagga Rao, S/o Rama Rao, Residing at Sunkara paddayya Gari Street, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 9 Konisetti Narsimha Murthy, S/o Subba Rao, residing at Mintevari Thota, Backside of C.M.P. Office, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 10 Aggisetti Trimurthulu Narayana Rao, s/o Satyanarayana, Residing at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District (being represented by G.P.A.Holder) G.Jagga Rao, S/o Rama Rao, aged about 52 years, Sunkarapeddayyagari Street, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 11 Mallula Jhansi Lakshmi Bai, W/o Jagan Mohan Rao, Residing at Appanaramuni Lanka, East Godavari District. 12 Chirukuwada Settemma, W/o Venkata Ratnam, Residing at Goods Shed Road, D.No.12-5-19, Yamijala Vari Street, Gunupudi, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 13 Juttiga Kanakamba, W/o Venkatachalam, residing at Chinaranganipalem H/o Gunipudi, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. (petitioners all are agriculturist) ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District. 2 The A.P.Housing Board, represented by its Executive Engineer, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.S.SURYA PRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in W.P.No. 27510 of 2007 dated 7-2-2008, this appeal has been filed by the persons whose lands have been acquired by the Government authorities. The facts, which give rise for filing the petition, in nutshell, are as under: By notification dated 10-11-1993 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the lands referred to in the petition belonging to the appellants-original petitioners had been acquired. Subsequently, in pursuance of an agreement arrived at by the appellants-original petitioners, in respect of value of the land in question, an order was passed under Section 11 (2) of the Act whereby a total compensation of Rs.7,02,000/- per acre was determined. Necessary agreements had also been executed by the appellants in Form-IV. After having received the amount of compensation as determined hereinabove, the appellants wanted to have higher amount of compensation, as some other persons, whose lands had been acquired, had been paid higher amount of compensation when they had made an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. In pursuance of the said application made by other persons in LAOP No. 32 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram more amount was paid as compensation by an award dated 30-10-2006. As the amount awarded to other persons who, according to the appellants, are similarly situated, the appellants made an application under Section 28A of the Act claiming that they too should be paid higher amount of compensation, as was paid to other persons. The application submitted under Section 28A of the Act had been turned down by the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, the aforestated petition had been filed by the appellants. Learned single Judge was pleased to reject the petition on the ground that the present appellants had entered into an agreement under Section 11(2) of the Act and had accepted a sum of Rs.7,02,000/- per acre. In the aforestated circumstances, as the appellants had already agreed to receive the aforestated amount of compensation, according to the learned single Judge, the petition was rejected. Against the order passed by the learned single Judge rejecting the petition, this appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. The main submission which has been made by the learned Advocate Sri P.Venugopal appearing for the appellants is that there was no meaningful consent given by the appellants. Moreover, possession of the land in question had been taken by the Government authorities before even Section 4 (1) notification under the Act had been issued. In the aforestated circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants, even as per the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Act, was not adequate and, therefore, the application under Section 28A of the Act had been filed by the appellants. According to him, in the aforestated circumstances, the amount of compensation ought to have been enhanced by the learned single Judge. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants for the simple reason that the amount of compensation was determined as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act as agreed by the appellants before the Collector. The learned Government Pleader has shown us the record containing consent given by the appellants. Needless to say that the learned Advocate for the appellants has also not denied the fact that the amount of compensation had been determined under Section 11(2) of the Act and the amount of compensation had already been paid to them. Except the aforestated submission, no other submission has been advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. Learned Advocate has also relied upon the judgments delivered by this Court in the case of Komaramjeri Pedamunuswamy V. Government of A.P.[1], and K.Sai Reddy v. Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development, I.B. Sub- Division, Hyderabad[2]. More over he has also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderlal v. Paramsukhdas[3]. We have carefully gone through the aforestated judgments. In our opinion, the aforestated judgments would not render any assistance to the appellants for the reason that the facts in the instant case are quite different. For the aforestated reasons, we do not see any reason to entertain the appeal and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st December, 2008. GRR [1] 2005 (2) ALD 212 [2] 1995 (1) ALT 673 [3] AIR 1968 SC 366