IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1211 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27-11-2006 in W.P.No.10438 OF 1997 on the ﬁle of the High Court) Between: 1. Govt. A.P., Rep by the District Collector, Ananthapur District. 2. The Land Acquisition officer Cum- Mandal Revenue Officer, Gooty, Ananthapur District. ... APPELLANTS AND 1 Paladugu Lokanath, S/o. Paladugu Veerappa, R/o. Gooty, Ananthapur Dist. 2 Paladugu Lakshmamma, W/o. Paladugu Veerappa, R/o. Gooty, Ananthapur Dist. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NAGABUSHANA RAO The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per RSR, J) Aggrieved by the order dated 27-11-2006 passed in W.P.No.10438 of 1997, this appeal has been ﬁled by the respondents in the said writ petition. 2. In the writ petition, the respondents herein sought directions by way of Mandamus to direct the appellants herein to pass fresh award under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) with regard to land admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents covered by Survey No.259-1, situated at Chetnepalle village, Ananthapur District, i.e. the land which was given in lieu of the land covered by notiﬁcation dated 05-10-1977 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. 3. One late Sri Paladugu Veerappa, the father of the ﬁrst respondent and husband of the second respondent, was the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.29.05 cents covered by Survey No.259 of Chetnepalli village, Ananthapur District. Out of the aforesaid land, an extent of Ac.2.50 cents was notiﬁed for acquisition and notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and award No.42/77- 78 dated 14-11-1977 was also passed. It is not in dispute that pursuant to passing of the award, compensation amount was already paid. But when the said land, for which compensation was paid, was sought to be taken possession, there was a representation from the predecessor in title of the respondents herein stating that he had raised some structures on the land which was notiﬁed and he oﬀered to surrender equal extent of land adjoining the land under acquisition. Accepting the said oﬀer, the adjoining piece of land, which is in equal extent of the notiﬁed land, i.e. Ac.2.50 cents, was taken possession. But, however, on the ground that with regard to the surrendered land of Ac.2.50 cents no award is passed, W.P.No.10438 of 1997 is ﬁled seeking directions for passing of the award. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order, directed to pass fresh award with regard to the land, which was surrendered by the petitioner in lieu of the land covered by notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 4. In this appeal, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that with regard to the land notiﬁed for acquisition, proceedings had already been initiated under the provisions of the Act and on passing of the award, compensation was also paid. It is submitted that when possession was sought to be taken, late Sri Paladugu Veerappa, the father of the ﬁrst respondent and the husband of the second respondent, made a representation and oﬀered to surrender adjoining land in equal extent in lieu of the notiﬁed land and agreed that he will not claim any further compensation with regard to the surrendered land. 5. When the matter has come up on the last occasion, the learned Government Pleader was asked to place the original record before this court. 6. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Government Pleader has produced the record. A perusal of the record would make it clear that there was an oﬀer by late Sri Paladugu Veerappa, the predecessor in title of the respondents herein, to surrender the adjoining piece of land, which is in equal extent to the land under acquisition, i.e. Ac.2.50 cents. When such oﬀer was made, by recording the statement of late Sri Paladugu Veerappa, possession of the alternative land was taken. In the statement given by Sri Paladugu Veerappa, in clear terms, it is stated that he will not claim any compensation for the alternative land oﬀered in lieu of the land, which was covered by the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, for which compensation was already paid. 7. It is to be seen that alternative land was taken in view of the representation made by the original owner of the land, i.e. late Sri Paladugu Veerappa with a condition that he will not claim any further compensation. The land to the same extent was notiﬁed by issuing notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act and on passing of award, compensation was also received by the predecessor in title of the respondents. As alternative land is taken in view of the representation ﬁled by the original owner of the land, subject to his statement that he will not claim any further compensation, the question of passing any further award for the land which was surrendered in equal extent, will not arise. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. 9. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 30, 2008 MRR