IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7830 of 2004 Between: Smt. Duvvuru Vijayamma … Petitioner AND The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, Nellore District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri R. Ramchandra Reddy Counsel for the respondent : AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7830 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside endorsement dated 22.11.2003 issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to refer his application dated 17.11.2003 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for fixation of compensation in respect of his land. An extent of Ac.2.13 cents in Sy.No.960/3 to 5 of Gudur Town, Nellore District, belonging to the petitioner was acquired under Notiﬁcation dated 18.03.2002 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Award was passed on 25.09.2003 by the respondent. Notice issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 14.10.2003. The petitioner ﬁled an application through her advocate on 07.11.2003 for reference of the issue relating to ﬁxation of compensation to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. By endorsement dated 22.11.2003, the respondent rejected the said request of the petitioner on the ground that since a consent award was passed, her request for reference under Section 18 cannot be acceded to. This action of the respondent is assailed in this writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondent, it is inter alia averred that the petitioner gave her consent for passing the award. It is also speciﬁcally averred that as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992 (for short, ‘the Rules’) the consent award was passed and that the land owner, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer and the Joint Collector were participated in the proceedings. On the directions given by this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition produced the record. The record, no doubt, contains a purported statement of the petitioner and her husband. A careful perusal of this statement shows that the handwriting pertaining to the contents of the statement and the signatures do not tally which shows that the petitioner and her husband subscribed their signatures below the statement written in manuscript by some other person. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that during the course of award enquiry her signature was taken on some blank papers and the respondent cannot take undue advantage of the purported statement. She also pleaded that the procedure contemplated under the Rules for holding negotiations and obtaining consent was not followed and that the respondent has not passed a consent award. A perusal of the contents of the award shows that neither there is any reference to the proceedings of the Negotiation Committee in the said award nor the same was passed under Section 11(2) of the Act, which applies to consent awards. The record does not contain any deliberations of the Negotiation Committee with respect to the ﬁxation of compensation in this case. Though the respondent, as noted above, has asserted that the entire procedure envisaged under the Rules was followed and negotiations were held among the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer and the Joint Collector, he is not able to substantiate the said averment by producing any material in support of this averment. This Court, in an almost identical case, in Lakshety Pedda Laxman and others vs. District Collector, Adilabad District and another[1] held that the consent of the land owner is required to be taken in a prescribed form and the consent award is required to be passed after holding negotiations by the Negotiation Committee constituted under the Rules. Except the ipsi dixit of the respondent, the record does not reveal that either a Negotiation Committee has been constituted or the petitioner’s consent was obtained in the process of the negotiations made by the Negotiation Committee in the prescribed form. Therefore, I am not prepared to allow the respondent to deny to the petitioner the valuable right of reference for ﬁxation of proper market value for her land under Section 18 on the basis of the purported consent, which is not obtained in accordance with the Rules. Since admittedly the application ﬁled by the petitioner is within the time prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, the impugned endorsement is quashed. The respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the competent civil Court, within a period of eight weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.09.2008 ES [1] 2004 (1) ALD 278