THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition Nos. 1603 of 2007, 5579 of 2006, 8786 of 2007, 8787 of 2007, 7222 of 2007 and 6138 of 2007 (Dated : 20-08-2010) Between: Geethala Pratap Reddy …Petitioner A n d The Special Deputy Collector (LA) Somasila Project, Kadapa District and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition Nos. 1603 of 2007, 5579 of 2006, 8786 of 2007, 8787 of 2007, 7222 of 2007 and 6138 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: In this batch of writ petitions, the relief sought for is identical and therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. It is suffice to refer the relief sought for in Writ Petition No.5579 of 2006, which reads as hereunder:- “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents after passing the award No.2/2004-05 dated 20-10-2004 deducting depreciation 35.314$ on the structures (Category-IV) evaluation amount in column No.14 of the Preliminary valuation of structures in Kommuru village, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa District under submersion of Somasila Project in Reach No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, ultra vires and violative of Articles 13,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the deducted amount of depreciation 35.314% on the evaluation amount to the petitioners as per the preliminary valuation of structures of Kommuru village, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa District forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 3. The petitioners are residents of Kommuru village. The houses owned by them came to be sub-merged under Somasila Reservoir Project. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette, on 27-9-2002 with regard to acquisition of the properties owned by the petitioners. A Committee has been constituted to decide the structural valuation of the properties that are being sub-merged under Somasila Reservoir Project. After due deliberations and giving participation to all the petitioners, consent awards came to be passed. Model estimates for the structures were proposed by the Engineering Department on the basis of the plinth area and nature of structures as per the current 2002-2003 S.S.R. Structures have been classified into four categories. The structures constructed over and above normal requirements and non-residential have been classified as Category-IV structures. With regard to structures coming under category-IV, deduction of 35.314% on the valuation amount has been made apart from depriving 25% of appreciation value. The petitioners received compensation as per the consent award. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court assailing the action of the respondents in deducting 35.314% on the valuation amount and also disallowing 25% of the appreciation amount. According to the petitioners, method of calculation of the amounts payable to the structures put up by them is arbitrary and discriminative. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No.5529 of 2006. “ It is submitted that the respondents cannot deduct 35.314% on the evaluation amount and they are not permissible to deduct such huge percentage while the petitioners are being accepted for the consent award. The respondents are acting accordingly to their whims and fancies aggrieved by the action of the respondents the petitioners are approaching this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the right to live with human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was deprived to the petitioners by the respondents inaction by deducting 35.314% on their structures would suffers to construct the same houses elsewhere. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also rendered number of judgments that the compensation should be paid liberally to the citizens where the Land Acquisition taken place in acquisition of structures/houses. The District Collector and Chairman of Empowered Committee, Kadapa vide Rc.No.G2/3606/2002, dt.14-7- 2003 constituted teams comprising Mandal Revenue Officer and Mandal Revenue Inspector and Asst. Executive Engineer as members under supervision of the Joint Collector, Kadapa. The Team has enumerated all the existing structures and submitted enumeration list to the District Empowered Committee and the same has been approved by the District Empowered Committee making into category-1, Category-II, Category-IV. The Empowered Committee did not reduce 35.314% for Category I and II. But arbitrarily they deducted 35.314% on Category-IV, which is discriminatory and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions the respondents ought not have deducted 35.314% on the evaluation amount of structures belonging to the petitioners”. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit. The counter affidavit, in brief, is: The petitioners properties exist in reach No.1 of Kommur village. Basing on the requisition furnished by the Engineering Department, the Draft Notification (DN) and Draft Declaration (DD) were published. The Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.553/1 & CAD (TGP-II) Department constituted an Empowered Committee with the District Collector as the Chairman to resolve all the issues relating to lands and structures being submerged under Somasila Project. Further, the Government issued a G.O.Rt.No.4841 and CAD (TGP-II) Dept. dated 26.6.2003 recommending to the Empowered Committee to complete the balance land acquisition work. The Empowered Committee appointed the Special Collector, Srisailam Project, Kurnool as the Special Officer to enumerate and enquire all the structures and submit proposals. Accordingly, the Special Officer has inspected each and every structure in the Kommuru village and prepared proposals and submitted the same to the District Empowered Committee. Structures constructed over and above normal requirement and non-residence have been brought under category-IV. The said categorization proposals were approved by the Special Collector, T.G.P, Nellore and also approved by the District Empowered Committee. The house owners furnished their consent for passing of award. Basing on the categorization of structures, depreciation was made. The petitioners’ houses are non-residential and motivated structures, and as such the said structures have been categorized as category-IV and accordingly, the depreciation in the value has been arrived at. The petitioners furnished their consent in Form IV on Ten rupees non-judicial stamp accepting the award amount passed by the Land Acquisition Officer towards structures that are being submerged in Somasila Project. They also gave an undertaking that they will not claim higher compensation in any Court of law or in any other forum and shall abide by the consent award made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11(2) read with Section 31(2) of the Act. As such the petitioners are not entitled to seek higher compensation. The District Empowered Committee permitted to pass consent Award by enhancing up to 25% on the compensation amount. Accordingly, 25% compensation amount was enhanced and added to the genuine structures only. Since the writ petitioners structures were not genuine structure, depreciation of 35.314% in the valuation has been made. Depreciation was made only in respect of non-residential, motivated and damaged structures only, i.e., Category-IV. The petitioners knowing fully well of the deduction of 35.314% of the structural value accepted the compensation amount. Even the petitioners submitted statement during the award enquiry giving their consent in Form No.IV on non-judicial stamp. The petitioners being parties to the consent award cannot be permitted to question the same by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not given consent for depreciation of 35.314% on the valuation amount and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to deduct 35.314% out of the valuation amount towards depreciation. A further submission has been made that denial of 25% increase over the structures put up by the petitioners while allowing similar benefit to other owners amounts to discrimination and in which case, the petitioners are also entitled to 25% increase over the estimated value arrived at by the Engineering Department for the structures following SSR rates. In a way, it is the contention of the learned counsel that disallowing 25% increase over the estimated value as well as deducting 35.314% on the valuation amount of the structures of the petitioners is arbitrary. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the Special Officer notified all the structures of Kommuru village and submitted categorization proposals to the District Empowered Committee and in turn, the Committee approved the categorization of structures. The landowners accepted the categorization and gave consent and thereafter received the compensation and accordingly, consent award came to be passed. She would also submit that the petitioners submitted their consent in Form No.IV on Rs.10/- non-judicial stamp paper and in which case, it is impermissible for the petitioners to contend that depreciation of 35.314% from the valuation amount and denial of 25% increase on the estimated value are arbitrary. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record the consent forms submitted by the petitioners. The consent forms in unmistakable terms indicate that they accepted the amounts valued for the structures in the lands proposed for acquisition. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar[1], wherein it has been held that the land- owners having accepted the award were estopped from maintaining the application under Section 18 of the Act. Para 12 of the judgment needs to be noted and it is thus:- “ A right of a landholder to obtain an order of reference would arise only when he has not accepted the award. Once such award is accepted, no legal right in him survives for claiming a reference to the Civil Court. An agreement between the parties as regards the value of the lands acquired by the State is binding on the parties. So long as such agreement and consequently the consent awards are not set aside in an appropriate proceedings by a Court of law having jurisdiction in relation thereto, the same remain binding. It is one thing to say that agreements are void or voidable in fraud, collusion et., or are against public policy but it is another thing to say that without questioning the validity thereof, the respondents could have maintained their writ petitions. We have noticed hereinbefore that even in the writ petitions, the prayers made by the respondents were for quashing the order dated 23-8- 1999 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and for issuance of a direction upon him to refer the matter to the civil Court. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, thus, could not have substituted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer by reason of the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the question as regards the validity of the agreements had not been raised before the High Court. As indicated hereinbefore, the Division Bench of the High Court had also rejected the contention raised on behalf of the respondents herein to the effect that the agreements did not conform to the requirements of Article 299 of the Constitution or had not been drawn up in the prescribed proforma”. 9. Indisputably, the Empowered Committee categorized the structures. The structures constructed over and above normal requirement and non-residence were brought under Category IV. For category IV structures 25% increase over the estimated value has been denied besides depreciation of 35.314% on the estimated value. Following the said method, compensation has been arrived at, for which all the landowners whose structures come under Category IV had given their consent. The consent forms are also placed on record. They categorically stated in un-mistakable terms that they accepted the valuation made by the negotiations committee. Pursuant to their consent, awards came to be passed and thereupon, the petitioners received the compensation. It is well settled that if once land holders receive the compensation without any protest pursuant to the consent award, they cannot be permitted to contend that the method of calculation of the award is discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Therefore, I find that the writ petitions are devoid of merits and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.20-08-2010 Note:- Issue CC in one week (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition Nos. 1603 of 2007, 5579 of 2006, 8786 of 2007, 8787 of 2007, 7222 of 2007 and 6138 of 2007 DATED : 20-08-2010 [1] (2005) 4 Supreme Court