THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8456 of 2004 17.03.2011 Between: G.Sattaiah ...Petitioner And The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8456 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner who is the owner of 455 square yards in survey No.39/A of Kothur Village filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the land along with all consequential benefits as per law including the structures by applying the Index of 1996-1997 SSR Rates. The fact of the matter, which is not disputed, is that the petitioner’s land was acquired for railway over bridge at Kothur on National Highway 7. After following the prescribed procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), award No.F/5954/95 was passed on 20.01.1998. It is an award passed admittedly in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (Negotiations Committee) Rules, 1992. At the time of receiving the compensation, it appears the petitioner raised objection with regard to applying the 1996-1997 SSR Rates. The objection was forwarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Executive Engineer, who directed the Deputy Executive Engineer to look into the matter. Even before any action could be taken, the petitioner approached the Minister for Roads and Buildings by way of representation on 21.10.1999. In response thereto, by communication dated 10.12.1999, the Government informed the petitioner that the report of structural value was furnished by the Executive Engineer and that compensation will be paid to him by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner’s grievance is that in spite of Government intervention, no action was taken. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition. A counter affidavit is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer opposing the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the writ petition is barred by delay and laches as the same is filed after six years. It is further submitted that at the time of passing the consent award, the petitioner did not raise any objection, and therefore, he cannot be permitted to agitate the matter. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It is well settled that when a consent award is passed, the question of agitating the same for enhancement either under Section 18 of the Act or under any other procedure is not permissible (see State of Karnataka v Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar[1]). As held by the Division Bench of this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v Avirneni Rama Krishna[2], in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, this Court cannot give any directions to the Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the factors which are to be considered while passing an award. In this case, admittedly the petitioner was paid compensation as per the consent award, which he accepted. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.03.2011 pln [1] (2005) 4 SCC 264 [2] 2010 (4) ALT 421 (DB)