IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.27974 & 28827 of 2009 Common Order: These two Writ Petitions raise common issues and therefore, they are heard and being disposed of together with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are owners of certain lands, which were notified for acquisition for formation of an approach road connecting the rail-cum- road bridge. In pursuance of the said acquisition proceedings, award enquiry was undertaken. It has come out from the pleadings of the parties that negotiations were held with the land owners for passing consent awards and that in pursuance thereof, with the consent of some of the land owners, awards were already passed fixing the market value at Rs.13 lakhs per acre in some cases and Rs.6 lakhs per acre in other cases. It is admitted, at the hearing, that in view of interim orders granted by this Court on 23-12-2009 and 31-12- 2009, no awards have been passed in case of the petitioners’ lands. The only dispute raised in these Writ Petitions is that during the negotiations, respondents are not willing to take into consideration award proceedings, dated 24-07-2010, in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2-98 cents in R.S.No.167/1, which, according to the petitioners, has the same potentialities as their lands under acquisition possess. Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, stated that the respondents are not taking into consideration the basic value register for the purpose of determination of compensation. Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, representing the respondents, submitted that in respect of the similarly situated lands under acquisition, compensation was fixed with consent depending upon the potentialities of the lands and that since negotiations have not been completed, the petitioners can raise all the issues, which they want to project for fixation of compensation, before the Joint Collector, West Godavari District and the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, West Godavari District. In my opinion, the petitioners can give consent for passing of award only if they are satisfied with the quantum of compensation that may be offered by the State. It is axiomatic that if the petitioners are not satisfied with the offer, they are entitled not to give consent and instead insist on the respondents to pass award in terms of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by taking into consideration the parameters envisaged under Section 23 thereof. This Court cannot compel the respondents to pass a consent award in a particular manner. However, if the respondents want to settle the issue of compensation by obtaining consent from the petitioners, they shall make a reasonable approach by considering the pleas of the petitioners and the material that may be placed by them to arrive at correct market value. As the award proceedings have not been concluded and the negotiations are still stated to be inconclusive, liberty is given to the petitioners to approach the Joint Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur Revenue Division, with a fresh representation along with the material, if any, in support thereof. On receipt of such representation, the aforementioned Officers are directed to consider the same, take an appropriate decision thereon and, if the parties arrive at a consensus on the market value, pass a consent award. Conversely, if such consensus is not arrived at between the parties, an appropriate award in terms of provisions of the Act shall be passed within a period of three months from today. In such event, the petitioners shall have the option to seek reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, WVMP.No.2627 of 2010 in/& WPMP.No.36422 of 2009 and WVMP.No.2753 of 2010 in/& WPMP.No.37439 of 2009 in W.P.Nos.27974 and 28827 of 2009 respectively are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 11h July, 2011 lur