GOLLA SUNKULAMMA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is statedly owner of agricultural dry land admeasuring Acs. 3. 11 in survey no. 121/1 situated at Cherukulapadu village of Veldurthy Mandal in Kurnool District. The land was acquired for provision of house sites to poor persons under Award No. 4/95 dated 19-4-1995. Petitioner alleges that the land is abutting the village site in the near proximity of the village and therefore the market value is Rs. 2. 00 lakhs per acre. However first respondent awarded a sum of rs. 7,500/ -. When the amount was paid on 9-1-1996 she received the same under protest and sent a representation on 10-1-1996 seeking reference to Civil Court, in vain. She therefore got issued a legal notice dated 21-9-1997 seeking reference. In response thereto first respondent sent letter bearing rc. C. 1133/94, dated 17-10-1997, informing petitioner that she did not send application under Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) seeking reference and that she gave her consent before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO)for fixing the market value at Rs. 7,500/- per sq. yard. Assailing the said communication, present writ petition is filed and a direction is also sought to respondents to refer the matter/ award to Civil Court under Section 18 (1) of the Act.

(2.) FIRST respondent filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. The case of respondents is a follows. Notification under section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 5-4-1994 and the same was published in kurnool District Extraordinary Gazette dated 18-4-1994. The substance of the same was published in the village by beat of tom-tom on 24-5-1994. Petitioner gave her statement before Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District, agreeing for acquisition of land and to take compensation at Rs. 7,500/- per acre as fixed by the Government. She did not attend the award enquiry on 2-1-1995 and 20-3-1995 in spite of receiving notices. The Award was passed and compensation was paid. She accepted the compensation under protest but did not file any application seeking reference.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submits that when the compensation was paid on 9-1-1996, petitioner accepted the same under protest and therefore even if a representation was not sent earlier, the same does not amount to waiver of her right to seek enhancement of compensation. Nextly he contends that if any statement of petitioner, as alleged by petitioner (sic. respondents), was recorded by the MRO, the same does not amount to consent Award. He points out that unless and until Award is passed in accordance with Andhra Pradesh Land acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992 (the Rules, for brevity), Award cannot be consent Award. Per contra, learned assistant Government Pleader for Land acquisition reiterated the position of respondents as disclosed in the counter affidavit.