L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, 515 in number are residents of Babulgaon village, Jukkal mandal, Nizamabad district. Around the year 1993, the Irrigation Department, government of Andhra Pradesh, had brought about Koulas Nala project. All the lands around the village of Babulgaon were acquired since they were to be submerged in the reservoir. After the project was completed to a substantial extent, it emerged that water has accumulated on all the three sides of the village and on that account snakes and other poisonous insecticides started entering the houses of the villagers. It is said that as many as ten people died on account of snake and insect bites. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS and their elected representatives approached the Government for acquisition of the entire village. Necessary inspection was caused and it was found that except an approach to the village, the lands on the three sides were submerged and with the progress of the construction of the reservoir, the village is likely to be disconnected from outside. It was in this context, that a Committee of Government officials visited the village on 7. 7. 1998. On the basis of their physical inspection, proceedings were initiated to acquire the entire village together with the structures therein. During the inspection, an undertaking has been given by the petitioners to the effect that they do not claim any compensation over and above what is awarded to them by the Land acquisition Officer and that they do not seek rehabilitation. In view of these developments, respondents issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act ( the Act for brevity), dated 7. 9. 1999. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 2. 7. 2000. Petitioners contend that the Land Acquisition Officer, the third respondent, got estimated the structures in the village through the Executive Engineer, Koulas nala Project, the fourth respondent, and on the basis of the same, he submitted a Draft Award dated 12. 2. 2001 for approval by the District Collector, the second respondent. According to this Draft Award, the compensation for the lands as well as the structures in the entire village was shows at Rs. 3,46,24,831/ -. The second respondent addressed a letter dated 12. 4. 2. 2001 for approval by the District Collector, the second respondent. According to this Draft Award, the compensation for the lands as well as the structures in the entire village was shows at Rs. 3,46,24,831/ -. The second respondent addressed a letter dated 12. 4. 2001 directing the third respondent to effect certain deductions ranging between 33 to 65% towards cost of wood and to permit the owners of the acquired houses to take away the wood. On the basis of this letter, the third respondent passed an award dated 23. 4. 2002 for a sum of Rs. 2,23,80,585/ -. Petitioners challenge the action of respondents 2 and 3 in reducing the compensation, ignoring the report submitted by the fourth respondent. According to them, they are put to great loss and serious hardship on account of certain unauthorized deductions, particularly in the context of their undertaking not to seek enhancement of the compensation. It is also their case that once the proceedings were initiated almost in the form of a Consent Award, respondents 2 and 3 ought to have undertaken negotiations as regards the deductions. ( 3 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for respondents submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable on the ground that the only remedy for the owner of a land against an Award is to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act. He further submits that the Draft Award submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer is not final and that it is always competent for the District Collector to examine it and issue necessary directions to the Land Acquisition Officer. For the purpose of Koulas Nala Project, several lands including those in the babulgaon village were acquired. The village proper, however, was left outside the purview of the acquisition. After the reservoir became functional, it emerged that the village was subjected to the menace of snakes and other water bound poisonous insects. In view of the fact that within a short time as many as ten persons died on account of the snake and insect bites, the pressure on the government mounted for acquiring the houses in village. It was in this context that a Committee was constituted and an inspection was conducted in the village. In view of the fact that within a short time as many as ten persons died on account of the snake and insect bites, the pressure on the government mounted for acquiring the houses in village. It was in this context that a Committee was constituted and an inspection was conducted in the village. ( 4 ) WHILE the petitioners contend that undertakings were extracted from them not to seek enhancement of compensation and not to press for rehabilitation, the respondents stated that the said undertakings were given by the petitioners on their own accord. Notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act were issued. Since the assessment of the houses and other structures were involved, the third respondent took the assistance of the fourth respondent. On the basis of the information furnished by the fourth respondent, the third respondent prepared a draft Award dated 12. 2. 2001 indicating that the total compensation for the village comes to Rs. 3,46,24,831/ -. As required under law, this was submitted to the second respondent for approval. He in turn addressed a letter dated 12. 4. 2001 indicating as under:"i invite your attention to the reference cited and request you to submit the revised P. V. keeping in view of the following points as observed by Joint collector. 1. Where the detailed estimates are available. The gross amount of structure (-) Gross amount of wood value (33% to 65%) be taken as the structure value and give deduction of 10% for Non Randb standards and depreciation also may be deducted. 2. Where there are no detailed estimates 30% of the structural value may deducted towards wood value. 3. The awardees may permitted to take away their wood. The statement of the wood value furnished by the Executive Engineer, Kowlas Nala division, Nizamabad is sent herewith. I request you to send the revised P. V. keeping in view of the above points urgently. " ( 5 ) IT was on this basis, that the third respondent passed a final Award dated 23. 4. 2002 awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,23,80,585/- for the entire village. The petitioners feel aggrieved by this substantial reduction. It is true that the only remedy for a person who is not satisfied with an Award passed under the Act is to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, this course of action is not absolute. 4. 2002 awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,23,80,585/- for the entire village. The petitioners feel aggrieved by this substantial reduction. It is true that the only remedy for a person who is not satisfied with an Award passed under the Act is to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, this course of action is not absolute. If the Courts find that the Award suffers from material irregularities and statutory violations, effected parties cannot be required to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act and await the adjudication thereof. A Division Bench of this Court had considered this very issue in K. Peda venkataiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh. The complaint in that case was that the amount indicated by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Draft Award was substantially reduced by the approving authority without any basis. After discussing the matter at length, the Division Bench held as under:"it is true and very well established proposition of law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant he should be required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the high Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ordinarily, an award made under Section 11 of the Act after making enquiry under Section 9 of the Act determining (a) the true area of the land; (b) the compensation which should be allowed for the land; and (c) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, may not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the aggrieved persons have an alternative and effective remedy under Section 18 of the Act by way of a reference to competent Court of civil jurisdiction, where objections, be it to the measurement of the land, amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested etc. , can be raised and decided. This Court cannot elect to decide for itself the same questions in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. Adequacy or otherwise of the compensation cannot be gone into by this court in a judicial review proceeding. , can be raised and decided. This Court cannot elect to decide for itself the same questions in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. Adequacy or otherwise of the compensation cannot be gone into by this court in a judicial review proceeding. Nor this Court can undertake to decide what is the true area of the land and so to what would be the market value of the acquired land. But the case on hand is a case where the Award has been passed in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of the Act. The crucial date for assessing the market value of the land is the date of publication of notification under Section 4, Sub-Section (1) of the Act. This mandatory requirement has been given a total go bye while actually awarding compensation to the appellants. " ( 6 ) THE present case stands on a higher footing if not on the same pedestal. In the case before the Division Bench, the party was entitled to seek reference under section 18 of the Act. In the present case, the petitioners have denied to themselves the right to seek reference by submiting an undertaking. The proceedings were almost in the nature of a Consent Award. Consent, by its very nature presupposes the agreement of both the parties on contested issues. From the facts referred to in the previous paragraphs, it emerges that after submission of the Draft Award by the third respondent, the views of the petitioners were not taken into account at all. The substantial reduction of almost more than one-third of the amount was on the basis of the directions issued by the second respondent in his letter dated 12. 4. 2001. Unless this aspect was discussed with the petitioners or their representatives, the proceedings cannot partake the character of Consent Award. In all fairness, respondents 2 and 3 ought to have indicated their intention to effect deduction of the cost of wood to the petitioner. What would have emerged on such discussion is a different thing altogether. Absence of discussion as such would certainly vitiate the entire proceedings. ( 7 ) THE nature and parameters of a Consent Award contemplated under Section 11 (2) of the Act were dealt with in the Judgment dated 14. 11. 2003 in W. P. No. 11993 of 1999 and batch. Absence of discussion as such would certainly vitiate the entire proceedings. ( 7 ) THE nature and parameters of a Consent Award contemplated under Section 11 (2) of the Act were dealt with in the Judgment dated 14. 11. 2003 in W. P. No. 11993 of 1999 and batch. After discussing the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the A. P. Land Acquisition (Negotiations Committee) Rules, 1992 it was held as under:"this Court finds that there was no settlement as provided for under the Rules. Even in the counter affidavits, it is not stated that a Committee, as contemplated under Rule 4 was constituted. No reference was made to the constitution of the Committee with other members, much less, their participation. It was projected as though the District Collector himself can constitute or represent the committee. The requirements as to the existence of applications from the Requisitioning Department, Agreement in form NO. III to be signed by the land owner on one hand and the LAO on the other, and attestation thereof by the Members of the Committee, are totally absent. The affidavits, which are prescribed in Form No. IV and required to be procured from the claimants are not even referred to. The 2nd respondent was not supposed to treat the matter of consent at his ipsi dixit. The respondents were not able to place before this Court any document containing the so-called consent said to have been given by the petitioner. The consent was required to be in a prescribed form. The allegation of the petitioners that their signatures were taken on blank papers by stating that they are required for the purpose of preparing valuation, etc. , remains unrebutted. "when such is the requirement in law, the respondents ought not to have resorted to unilateral deductions. ( 8 ) IN that view of the matter, the Award dated 12. 2. 2001 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to undertake negotiations with the petitioners or their representatives as regards deduction of cost of wood of the acquired structures. It is only after a final decision emerges in this regard the final Award shall be passed by the third respondent. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.