THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.397 of 2010 ORDER: The property of an extent of 4122 square yards, in premises bearing door No.10-3-165 and 165/A of Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad, owned by the petitioner, was affected in the widening of the road. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, addressed a letter, dated 08.08.2008, to the petitioner, offering compensation @ Rs.7,000/-, per square yard. This was stated to be on the basis of the determination made by the District Collector, Hyderabad, through his letter, dated 16.03.2008. In reply, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 20.08.2008, agreeing to receive the said compensation, but insisting that the compound wall for the premises be constructed after realignment. The compensation was paid and the compound wall was also constructed. The petitioner states that the Corporation has paid the compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per square yard for other persons whose properties were affected. It is also stated that the prevailing market value is Rs.40,000/-, per square yard. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners @ Rs.40,000/-, per square yard. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The occasion to determine the market value in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) would arise, if the proceedings are initiated under that enactment. Even where notifications are issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, it is possible for the authorities to negotiate and pass a consent award. In the instant case, the land owned by the petitioner was taken over by the Corporation on the basis of negotiations. An offer was made by the Corporation to pay the compensation @ Rs.7,000/- per square yard. That in turn was accepted by the petitioner through their reply. Almost a consent award came to be passed and the compensation was paid. The petitioner cannot turn round and claim higher amount of compensation. It needs to be noted that even where a consent award was passed under the Act, the claimant cannot demand any amount in excess thereof. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.03.2011. GJ