ORDER :

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not making necessary proposals for payment of compensation for the Indigo Vats which are situated in the land acquired for Somasila Project i.e. an extent of Ac. 0.73 cents in Sy.No.19/1 and in an extent of Ac. 0.16 cents in Sy.No.68 of Jonnavaram Village, Reach No.IX, Atluru Mandal, inspite of proposals vide Ref.No.C/151/2007 dt. 17.12.2016 and Ref.No.C/151/ 2007 dt. 23.08.2017 made by the 3rd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to make necessary proposals for payment of compensation as per the said proposals of the 3rd respondent and pass…”

2. This Court has heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that they were not paid compensation for the Indigo Vats that were existing on their site and therefore, the writ is filed for the same.

4. Learned counsel submits in all fairness that land measuring Ac.0.73 cents in Sy.No.19/1 and 0.16 cents in Sy.No.68 of Jonnavaram Village was notified for acquisition. The acquisition was completed, but the petitioners did not accept the compensation and raised a demand for payment of the compensation for the Indigo Vats. Basing on the representation of the petitioners, the site was inspected in 2016 and the value was fixed for the Indigo Vats. This value was later reduced as per the subsequent letter dated 23.08.2017. Learned counsel submits that neither in the draft notification nor in the draft declaration, the Indigo Vat was published when the petitioners realized that they were not paid compensation for the rates they made a protest and a representation. The same was accepted and inspection was ordered to be conducted. Their value was also determined. Learned counsel therefore submits that as the facts are clear and inspection revealed the existence of the Indigo Vats, the petitioners are entitled to compensation as per the proposal dated 17.12.2016.

5. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader raises a question of delay and points out that the notification was published in November, 2007 and declaration was published in January, 2008. He argues that writ petition was filed in 2017 claiming compensation. He also stated that the award is a consent award and that the 8th petitioner alone has accepted the compensation. It is further admitted that petitioners 1 to 7 did not receive the compensation and raised a dispute. It is also pointed out that at the stage of the draft declaration or the draft notification, no objections were received. It is also stated that after passing of the order, the matter was referred to the authority under section 64 of the New Act and matters are pending before the authority. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. The last submission of the learned Government Pleader is that the order of the Division Bench in WA.Nos.334 and 335 of 2021 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. He points out that the Division Bench held that there cannot be two awards for one property. He points out that the Division Bench also clearly stated that if the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the Indigo Vats in the award, they had to take steps to move the District Collector under section 18 of the old Act. Relying upon all of these, it is argued that since the writ appeal also relates to Somasila Project, the order of the Division Bench is binding on this Court and that the writ is not maintainable.

6. In rejoinder, Sri Lakshminarayana relies upon a memo he has filed along with the pleadings in the writ petition out of which Writ Appeal Nos.334 and 335 of 2021 arise. He points out that in the order of the single Judge against which the Writ Appe