(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more appropriately a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to passing of the Award No.1/2011 dated 12-2-2011 and quash the same declaring illegal and also direct to hold section 5A enquiry.)

The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Secunderabad, the 3rd respondent herein, proposed to construct a 765/400 K.V. Substation at Orvakal Village, Kurnool. About Acs.80.00 of land was needed. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 22.07.2010, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners herein in different survey numbers of Orvakal Village and Mandal. Having regard to the urgency involved in the matter, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, by invoking powers under Section 17(4) of the Act, and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published. In the award enquiry, the petitioners made a claim of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer, the 1st respondent herein, passed an award, dated 10.02.2011, wherein he determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.2,24,000/-, per acre. The petitioners challenge the award.

One of the grounds urged by them is that the 1st respondent himself corresponded with the 3rd respondent indicating that the tentative value of the land, to be paid under Section 17(3-A) of the Act is at the rate of Rs.10 lakhs + solatium and interest and that the 3rd respondent has deposited the amount accordingly. It is also pleaded that the 1st respondent did not take the evidence adduced by the petitioners, into account.

On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. According to them, the procedure prescribed under the Act was strictly followed and that the market value was determined on the basis of the statistics that are available for the lands in the immediate neighbourhood. They further plead that, in case the petitioners are not satisfied with the award, they can avail the remedy under Section 18 of the Act.

The 3rd respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit. The fact that the land was acquired at their instance, is admitted. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the 3rd respondent states that the 1st respondent indicated the tentative market value of the land proposed to be acquired at Rs.10 lakhs per acre and taking into account, a sum of Rs.8,30,12,800/-representing 80% of market value, proportionate solatium, interest and additional market value, was deposited. They further submit that they do not have any objection for the payment of compensation on that basis.

Heard Sri K.Vijaya Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri R.Raghunandan, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

It is a matter of record that the lands owned by the petitioners aggregating to about Rs.38 acres was acquired for the benefit of the 3rd respondent, by initiating proceedings under the Act. Urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked. The 1st respondent passed an award on 10.02.2011. The grievance of the petitioners is that the compensation awarded by the 1st respondent is totally inadequate and disproportionate.

In the ordinary course of things, the owner of a land acquired by the Government, has to seek remedy under Section 18 of the Act, in case he is not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. This case, however, presents certain typical features. It has already been mentioned that the urgency clause was invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Section 17(3-A) of the Act mandates that whenever the enquiry under Section 5-A is dispensed with, the Government, or the agency, for whose benefit the land i