K. Harilal, J.

Since the pleadings are identical, the matters in issue involved in all these writ petitions and the reliefs sought for are one and the same, even though parties are different, all the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of accordingly by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners are the land owners whose properties were acquired under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act'). The said acquisition was effected for the widening of Karamana-Kaliyikkavila road.

3. According to the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34948 of 2015, an extent of 2.03 Ares (5.0141 cents) of land comprised in Re-Sy.No.561/16 (L.A. Sub Division No.25) of Block No.26 of Nemom Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District, had been acquired from him and the said property falls within Reach No.2 of Stretch 1, i.e., from Pappanamcode to Karakkamandapam.

4. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34427 of 2015, an extent of 3.12 Ares (7.7064 cents) of land comprised in Re-Sy. No. 794/14 of Nemom Village of Block No.26 in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District, had been acquired from her and the said property falls within Reach No.3 of Stretch 2, i.e., from Karakkamandapam to Pravachambalam.

5. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2015, the property acquired from him is having an extent of 1.44 Ares of land in Re-Sy. No.561/2 Block No.26 of Nemam Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District.

6. In W.P.(C) Nos. 31988/15 and 34948/15, the District Collector, passed Ext. P3 Award fixing the market value at Rs. 5,52,534/- per Are and in W.P(C) No. 34427/15, the District Collector passed Ext. P3(b) Award fixing the market value at Rs. 5,46,199/- per Are (Rs. 2,21,131/- per cent).

7. The common contention raised by all the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that the market value, as mentioned above, had been fixed in violation of the statutory requirements under Section 26 of the Act. The crux and content of the pleadings in all the writ petitions is that it is obligatory on the part of the District Collector to conduct an enquiry, exhausting the statutory requirements under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 26 of the Act, in the determination of market value of land and fix whichever is found higher in the above enquiry. But, in the instant cases, the District Collector has not exhausted all the statutory requirements under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 26 of the Act to find out higher criteria; but, conducted an enquiry under Clauses (a) and (b) only. No enquiry had been conducted, as required under Clause (c) of Section 26 of the Act.

8. Further, it is contended that the rate per cent fixed as compensation, as per the valid exercise undertaken by the authorities like the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) and the District Level Purchase Committee (DLPC) in the case of properties of the same Reach of the same Stretch, is Rs. 11,45,365/- per cent, whereas the rate per cent fixed in the case of the petitioners in W.P(C) Nos. 31988/15 & 34948/15 is Rs. 2,23,697.97/-. In the case of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 34427/15, it is Rs. 2,21,131/- per cent, whereas, the rate per cent fixed as compensation as per the valid exercise undertaken by the authorities like SLEC and DLPC, in the case of properties of the same Reach of the same Stretch is Rs. 11,30,469/- and the same is evidenced by Ext. P2 in all the cases. It is with these averments, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions, with a prayer to call for the records leading to Exts. P3 & P3(b) and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari and to issue a writ of mandamus or direction commanding the respondents to fix the compensation to the petitioners strictly in accordance with the statutory mandate under Section 26(1) of the Act, in accordance with the higher rate stipulated in Ext. P2 f