When land acquisition compensation is based on consent forms obtained under false representations, and market values have been artificially manipulated by authorities to suppress compensation, the court will set aside the award and mandate a fresh determination of fair market value.

ORDER :

R Raghunandan Rao, J.

As the three Writ Petitions arise out of the same requisition proceedings and raise the same issue, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri T.L. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents.

3. The Indian Railways had sought, as part of the expansion and modernization of the Tirupati Railway Station, to acquire certain extents of land situated in Sy.No.190/1A1B2; Sy.No.190/1A1C as well as Sy.Nos.207/1, 207/2, 207/3B of Tirupati.

4. Upon a requisition being made, to that effect, by the Indian Railways, the 3^rd respondent, initiated acquisition proceedings. The preliminary notification, under Section 11(1) of the Act 30 of 2013 was published in the Gazette on 20.07.2015. Under this notification, Ac.0-48 cents in Sy.No.190/1A1C and Ac.0-267 cents in Sy.No.190/1A1B2 belonging to the writ petitioner in W.P.No.34043 of 2017; Ac.0-56 cents in Sy.No.207/1; Ac.0- 01 cent in Sy.No.270/2 and Ac.0-34 cents in Sy.No.207/3B belonging to the writ petitioner in W.P.No.36069 of 2017 were included in this notification. In the course of the said acquisition, the respondent authorities, on the ground that the petitioners in W.P.No.34043 of 2017 and 36069 of 2017, had given consent for passing consent Award, were awarded compensation, in relation to these lands at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per square yard.

5. The petitioners in these writ petitions being aggrieved by the said compensation have approached this Court, by way of these writ petitions. The contention of the writ petitioners, in all these cases, is that the market value of the land, in the above survey numbers, according to the Basic Value Register is Rs.30,000/- per square yard and consequently, compensation that should have been paid to the petitioners should have been calculated on the basis of the above market value. However, the total compensation payable to the petitioners was fixed at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per Sq. yard, which is clearly impermissible.

6. It appears that during pendency of W.P.No.34043 of 2017, the writ petitioner therein had passed away and his wife and daughter have been brought on record as his legal representatives. Apart from this, the wife and the daughter of the deceased writ petitioner in W.P.No.34043 of 2017 have filed a separate writ petition in W.P.No.33944 of 2017.

7. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit, the stand taken by the respondents is that the value of the land, which was sought to be acquired from the petitioners, as per the Basic Value Register was only Rs.10,000/- per square yard and the comparable sale deeds also did not show any great variation from this figure, consequently, compensation paid out to the petitioners was a fair and reasonable compensation. Apart from this, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34043 & 36069 of 2017 are said to have consented for passing of such awards by way of signing the necessary consent forms.

8. The petitioners in the above two Writ Petitions disputed this contention. The contention of the petitioners is that the signatures on the consent forms are their signatures. However, these signatures were obtained, under a false pretence, by assuring the petitioners that compensation would be paid to them by taking the market value of the land, i.e., Rs. 30,000/- per sq. yard. However, the respondent authorities after giving such assurance had gone back on that assurance and had fixed compensation itself as Rs.30,000/- per Sq. yard and the same is a clear case of fraud perpetrated on the petitioners therein.

9. The petitioners in W.P.No.33944 of 2017 on the other hand would contend that, they had a share in the land shown in the name of Sri T. Krishna Reddy, and the consent given by Sri T. Krishna Reddy, even it was treated as proper consent, would not in any manner bind the petitioners in W.P.No.33944 of 2017.

10. The petitioners to demonstrate that t