HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7485 of 2006 17.01.2008 Between: Kare Masemu … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District & another … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mrs. Geethanjali Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to either fix the market value of the petitioner’s building in an extent of Ac.0.730 cents in Survey No.238/2 situated in Vada Narasapuram Village of Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District or obtain an independent valuation report of the same. The petitioner in his affidavit averred that he is the owner of an extent of Ac.0.73 cents in Survey No.238/2 of Vada Narasapuram Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, that he constructed a single-storied RCC building on the said land and that the said property was notified for acquisition for the purpose of establishment of Naval Alternate Operating Base (NABO) for Indian Navy on East Coast in Visakhapatnam. The petitioner received notice dated 20.10.2005 got issued by respondent No.2 under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) inviting objections to the measurements and other aspects. The petitioner further averred that R&B officials submitted report dated 12.03.2006, wherein they have purported to fix the market value of the building, that not being satisfied with the said report, he approached M/s Silo Housing Designers, Visakhapatnam, which submitted report dated 01.04.2006 estimating the value of the building as Rs.4,21,000/-. The petitioner further averred that on receipt of the said report, he made representation to the Executive Engineer, R&B, Visakhapatnam seeking revision of the estimate of the value of the building and that the said representation is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the valuation is fixed on the basis of the report of R&B officials, he will be put to irreparable loss because by the time the reference of the dispute is made to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and the enquiry is conducted thereon, the building will be demolished and there will be no traces for its valuation. The petitioner, therefore, claimed the above-mentioned relief. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Under Section 18 of the Act, if any person interested but has not accepted the award makes a written application to the Collector, seeking reference of the dispute relating to determination of proper market value to the civil Court, within the stipulated time, the latter shall refer the same to the civil Court for its adjudication. The statute, itself, provided for a mechanism by which valuation of the property is determined. What is the appropriate market value is required to be determined by the civil Court by considering the evidence adduced by both the parties. On the petitioner’s own showing, there are two contradictory reports namely; one by the officials of R&B Department and the other obtained by him from a private consultant namely; M/s Silo Housing Designers, Visakhapatnam and which of them is correct is a matter to be adjudicated by the civil Court after weighing the evidence adduced by both parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not invited my attention to any of the statutory provisions under which the respondents are obliged to get the market value of a structure estimated by an independent valuer. I am, therefore, of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that reference of the dispute was already made to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner is, therefore, given liberty to adduce all legally permissible evidence available with him in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 9599 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17.01.2008 ksld