This 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.

2. An extent of Ac.0-41 cents in Survey No.41/1 of Thudur 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 under Section 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 Atlur village also got their disputes referred under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 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. Under Section 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 no