@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.@mdashThis Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare Award No. 18/28(A)/2010-2011, dated 23-01-2012,
passed by respondent No. 1, enhancing the compensation for the structures over an extent of Ac.0-10 cents out of Ac.0-41 cents in Survey No.
41/1 of Thuduru Village, Atluru Mandal, YSR District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential relief of setting aside the
said Award. An extent of Ac.0-41 cents in Survey No. 41/1 of Thuduru Village, Atluru Mandal, YSR District, was acquired along with various
other lands as they came under submergence of Somasila project. An award was passed on 23-01-1999, whereunder the petitioner was awarded
compensation of Rs. 6,461/- for Ac.0-10 cents of land and Rs. 2,79,897/- towards structures. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, one B. Rama
Subbamma, who is no other than the sister of the petitioner, and some others filed O.S. No. 21 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the District
Judge, Kadapa. The said suit ended in a compromise under decree, dated 05-10-2002, passed by Lok Adalat, Kadapa. As per the compromise
deed, compensation in respect of the land and structures was allocated among four persons including the petitioner and respondent No. 2. As
regards the petitioner, compensation payable in respect of Ac.0.10 cents has been allotted. In respect of respondent No. 2, it was agreed to give
the value of land of Ac.0.10 cents and structures to the tune of Rs. 2,79,897/-.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner has raised a dispute regarding the market value of the land u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the
Act''). Persons whose lands were also acquired under different awards and included in different reaches of Atluru village also got their disputes
referred u/s 18 of the Act. The said references were registered as L.A.O.P. No. 815 of 2007 and batch. The said cases were referred to the
District Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, which by its decree, dated 24.03.2008, has enhanced the compensation by 80% over and above the
market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
4. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the enhancement was confined only to Ac.0.10 cents of the land,
which fell to the petitioner''s share. Very strangely, respondent No. 2 has filed an application u/s 28-A of the Act before respondent No. 1 for
enhancement of value of the structures allotted to his share. Respondent No. 1, who has dealt as many as 26 claims, preferred by different parties,
and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,33,526/- in favour of respondent No. 2 towards the value of the purported structures. In the process respondent No.
1 appeared to have lost sight of the fact that the award passed in favour of the petitioner only pertains to the enhancement of market value of the
land and not for any structures. This aspect has not been disputed by any of the learned counsel appearing in this writ petition.
5. From the above uncontroverted facts, the following undisputed position emerges. That having received the compensation amount of Rs.
2,79,897/- for structures, respondent No. 2 has not claimed any enhancement by seeking reference u/s 18 of the Act. The petitioner to whose
share Ac.0.10 cents of the acquired land fell and received compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, has got the dispute referred to
the Civil Court only in respect of the compensation payable to the said Ac.0.10 cents of land. The Civil Court has accordingly referred the matter
to Lok Adalat, and the Lok Adalat has passed award enhancing 80% of the land value only in respect of the land and not towards the structures.
6. u/s 28-A of the Act, a person can approach the Collector for re-determination of the amount of compensation if the competent Civil Court has
enhanced compensation in respect of the land covered by the same notification. Therefore, a person who claims compensation for any property
other than the land is not entitled to make an application u/s 28-A of the Act at all. This is understandably so, because there can be a comparable
value between two parcels of land, but not between two structures as third value can never be compared, as each structure may vary in its size,
quality, and other features.
7. Being obviously conscious of this fact, the legislature has limited the claims of the persons for re-determination of the compensation u/s 28A of
the Act on the basis of the Civil Court''s award only to the extent of the land. Furthermore, on the admitted facts of the case, the Civil Court has
not awarded any compensation in respect of any structures and, therefore, the question of respondent No. 2 making an application for
redetermination of the compensation for the value of the structures does not arise. It is, therefore, wholly incomprehensible as to how respondent
No. 2 could make an application u/s 28-A of the Act in the absence of any enhancement for comparable property by the Civil Court in the
reference proceedings u/s 18 of the Act. The award impugned in this writ petition is, therefore, wholly unsustainable and the same is, accordingly,
set aside.
8. As regards the claim of the petitioner, the same is equally misconceived, because he has only succeeded in getting the value of the land
enhanced. The question of re-determination of the value of the structures which fell to the share of respondent No. 2 u/s 28-A of the Act, at the
instance of the petitioner, does not arise at all. At any rate, the petitioner never made an application before respondent No. 1 u/s 28-A of the Act
for re-determination of the value of structures.
9. For the above-mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed only to the extent of setting aside the Award of respondent No. 1 with the further
declaration that the petitioner is equally disentitled to claim any compensation u/s 28-A of the Act. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the judgment
of the reference Court to the extent of Ac.0-10 cents of land fallen to his share, he shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with the
law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 32561 of 2012 and W.V.M.P. No. 4002 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as
infructuous.