THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24803 of 2008 ORDER: An extent of Ac.4.25 guntas of land in Survey No.118 of Vemunuru Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District was acquired, along with certain other lands, for the purpose of an irrigation project by publishing a notiﬁcation, dated 25.11.2006, under Section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’). During the course of award enquiry, the petitioner gave his consent for an oﬀer made by the respondent. He was paid compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and a consent award was passed on 29.03.2008. The petitioner submitted an application, dated 29.03.2008, to the respondent with a request to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act to a civil Court, particularly with reference to the value of the trees on his land. Through his memo, dated 12.09.2008, the respondent rejected the request of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner gave his consent to receive the amount oﬀered by the respondent as compensation. Accordingly an award under Section 11(2) of the Act was passed on 29.03.2008. The question of referring the matter to a civil court under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation would arise, only when an award is passed under section 11(1) of the Act and when the owner of the land received the compensation under protest. One of the requirements, the owner of the land must fulfil before seeking reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Act, is that he must have received the compensation under protest (see section 31(2) of the Act). The protest, on the one hand, and consent to receive the amount, on the other, do not go together. It is represented that the consent given by the petitioner was only in respect of the compensation awarded for the land and not for the trees. The Act does not contemplate passing of award or separate exercises in respect of land on the one hand and structures or trees on the other. The package oﬀered by the respondent is for the entire land, including everything that exists upon it. Viewed from any angle, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained and the impugned order does not warrant interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 15.11.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24803 of 2008 Date: 15.11.2008 JSU