THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28399 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioners seek a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying difference of re-estimated compensation amount as assessed by the sixth respondent – Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, and sent to the fifth respondent – Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit-I, Srikakulam District, by letter bearing No.45/BRRP/ATO/2008, dated 12.06.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the difference re-estimated compensation amount as assessed by the sixth respondent. The house properties belonged to the petitioners were acquired by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for the purpose of Vamsadhara Project. A notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act vide Rc.No.3983/2005, dated 12.12.2005. After initiation of proceedings, consent awards were passed vide Award Nos.29 and 30 of 2007 for Bit Nos.V and I of Korada Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District and the petitioners were already paid compensation as per the agreed terms. Now, it is the case of the petitioners that they were not paid proper compensation and they made a representation, as such, the sixth respondent re-assessed the values of the structures and that they are claiming differential amount of compensation pursuant to such revaluation undertaken by the sixth respondent. Once the petitioners have given consent for passing of the awards for acquisition of their house properties, they are not entitled to any compensation more than the compensation fixed in the awards, which have become final. It is not known on what basis, the sixth respondent has again undertaken revaluation with regard to very structures, for which, consent awards were passed. In any event, having accepted the values and received the compensation, which were the subject matter of the consent awards under the Act, the petitioners are not entitled to any further compensation. Further, it is to be noticed that though it is alleged that the respondents have taken signatures and manipulated the records of consent, having received the compensation without any protest in 2007, it is not open for the petitioners to make such pleas at this point of time, when the awards have become final and compensation was already paid. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th NOVEMBER, 2010. kvni