THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4247 of 2006 10.03.2011 Between: Kelam Jagannadha Rao ...Petitioner And The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Unit-I, Hiramandalam, Srikakulam District. ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4247 of 2006 ORDER: The three petitioners statedly own small extents of lands admeasuring 80 square yards, 80 square yards and 160 square yards respectively comprised in survey Nos.350, 348/5 and 308/4 situated at Korada Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. The land was proposed for acquisition for Vamshadhara Project Phase-II. The petitioners filed instant writ petition alleging that the respondents are contemplating to determine the value of the land on acreage basis instead of considering the extent in square yards and value on square yard basis. They, therefore, filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to fix the valuation of the house sites as per the square yard and not as per acre. At the time of hearing none appears for petitioners. The Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) relies on an unreported Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v Avirneni Rama Krishna[1], wherein it was held that a Mandamus cannot be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider or not to consider any material while passing an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The relevant observations are as follows. Section 11 of the Act makes it clear that the power to determine the compensation vests in the Collector and the amount of compensation to which a claimant is entitled has to be determined by the Collector as per his own opinion. It goes without saying that opinion can neither be formed by hypothesis nor by imagination but on the basis of material, having relevance to the valuation of the property in question. The formation of opinion by the Collector being the principal condition, relevancy of the material or otherwise is the province of the Collector only and there being no provision to the contrary in the Act, it is for him and him alone to decide as to what material is relevant and what is irrelevant, therefore, no right of objections much less enforceable one can be claimed to have vested in a claimant/person interested against reliance being placed by the Collector on a particular material during enquiry in terms of Setion11 of the Act. That being the legal position a writ cannot lie to command the Collector to consider or not to consider any material relating to the determination of compensation and rejection of such objection by the Collector is not amenable to extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Writ petition is not maintainable for another reason also. As said above opinion of the Collector is dependant on material. It is simple to understand that with a view to arrive at a correct valuation of the property, the Collector has to collect the material. He may call for reports from any person, persons, agencies, organizations or experts. He may seek clarification as many times as would be necessary. All these reports and clarifications are part of the process of evaluation. What material is going to weigh with the Collector in forming the opinion in respect of compensation remains within his knowledge till award is made which is the only stage when material that is relied upon by the Collector can become public, therefore until award is made, writ petition is not maintainable, being premature. Following the Division Bench Judgment, the writ petition is also dismissed observing that after the award is passed – if not already passed, it shall be open to the petitioners to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act if such an application is within time. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.03.2011 pln [1] 2010 (4) ALT 421 (DB)