IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3449 of 2008 Between: 1 Billa Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Pratap Reddy, R/o. Chinthagattu Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. 2 Billa Surender Reddy, S/o. Pratap Reddy, R/o. Chinthagattu Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Warangal District. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer, Devadula Projecti, (R.D.O.) Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3449 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in referring the petitioners’ claims to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) as requested by them in their representation dated 20.03.2006, as illegal. Heard P. Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit and material filed by the petitioners shows that they have given consent for passing the award and accordingly on 27.01.2006 a consent award was passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents made an incorrect calculation of the value of the land and they are aggrieved by the said action. Ex-facie, when the land owners give their consent and allowed a consent award to be passed under Section 11(2) of the Act, they do not fall within the expression of “any person interested who has not accepted the award” under Section 18(1) of the Act. However, the case of the petitioners is that though they gave consent for a certain market value, the respondents fixed the same at less than the amount for which they gave their consent. In view of this averment of the petitioners, respondent No.2 is directed to consider their case. In the event, it is found that the amount awarded in the consent award is less than the amount for which the petitioners gave their consent, their claims shall be referred to the civil Court if the same are filed within the time stipulated under Section 18 of the Act. Conversely, if the amount awarded is in consonance with the amount, for which the petitioners gave in their consent, no reference need be made. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4487 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.02.2008 ES To 1.2CCs 2.2CD copies