This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation to the petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac.2-36 cents in Sy.No.5-12, under patta No.100, Chengambakkam Village Accounts, Varadayyapalem Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently the respondents be directed to pay the compensation, solatium etc., with interest to the petitioner forthwith.

2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner owned the ancestral property of wetland admeasuring Ac.2-36 cents situated in Sy.No.5-12, Patta No.100 of Chengambakam village accounts, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. The revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds as per Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity ROR Act). On a request made by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for brevity APIIC), fourth respondent herein for acquisition of the land for establishment of Industrial Park (Special Economic Zone), the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for brevity 1884 Act) were pressed into service and the authorities took possession of the said property along with other lands.

3. In the above background, complaining failure to pay the compensation on the part of the respondents, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

4. This Court, issued Rule Nisi on 22.12.2009 and responding to the same, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District/third respondent herein on his behalf and also on behalf of the second respondent/District Collector, Chittoor District, denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.

5. It is stated in the said counter that after publishing 4 (1) notification and draft declaration under Section 6 on 18.03.2006 and 10.11.2006 in the State Gazette Extraordinary respectively, award enquiry was conducted from 16.12.2006 to 26.12.2006 after service of notices on the persons interested under Sections 9 and 10 of 1984 Act and the award was passed vide Award No.69/2007 dated 18.03.2007 and the amounts were also paid.

6. Heard Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 apart from perusing the material available before this Court.

7. Submissions/contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

7.1. The impugned land acquisition proceedings which eventually culminated in the consent award passed by the District Collector to the extent of the land of the petitioner are highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

7.2. The impugned proceedings are opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of 1894 Act.

7.3. The failure on the part of the authorities in not issuing notices and failure to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing of a consent award under Section 11 (2) of 1984 Act and payment of compensation to the persons who failed to produce any evidence in support of their title and right in the property are arbitrary and preposterous.

7.4. The payment of compensation by way of consent award in favour of ineligible persons despite receipt of legal notice dated 16.09.2006 got issued by the petitioner is highly illegal and highhanded.

8. Submissions/contentions of the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent:

8.1. The impugned proceedings are in accordance with the provisions of 1894 Act and there is neither illegality nor irregul