ORDER: The District Collector, Karimnagar, 2nd respondent herein issued a notification, dated 02.11.2004, proposing to acquire an extent of Ac.23.22 guntas of land together with the structures thereon in Survey Nos.92, 96 and 97 of Upperlakesaram Village, Kamanpur Mandal, for the benefit of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, 5th respondent herein. The houses belonging to the petitioners herein were also covered by the acquisition. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 01.08.2005. This was followed by award enquiry. The petitioners have submitted their claims for payment of compensation for their houses. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer, 1st respondent herein passed an award, dated 02.01.2007, awarding compensation to the acquired land as well as the existing structures. However, he omitted to award any compensation for the houses of the petitioners. The petitioners submitted a representation, dated 08.03.2006, complaining that no compensation was paid for their houses. The 1st respondent issued a memo, dated 25.04.2006, stating that an enquiry was conducted on 22.01.2004 in the Village and in the video coverage, their houses were not found. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the award, insofar as it omits their houses as well as the memo, dated 25.04.2006. They plead that the houses were constructed on the basis of the permission accorded by the Gram Panchayat and there is no basis for the respondents in denying the compensation. 3. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, admitting that the houses of the petitioners were in existence, as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He, however, stated that the houses were constructed, on coming to know that the land was going to be acquired. It is also stated that the 5th respondent did not agree for inclusion of the houses in the acquisition proceedings. 4. The 5th respondent also filed counter affidavit, almost on the same lines. In addition, it is stated that though the land and structures were not at all needed for the company, they had to be acquired, on the insistence by the villagers as well as the revenue authorities. 5. Heard Sri M.Jagannatha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 6. The petitioners have placed before this Court, a copy of the proceedings, dated 12.01.2003, issued by the Gram Panchayat, according them permission to construct houses. 5. Heard Sri M.Jagannatha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 6. The petitioners have placed before this Court, a copy of the proceedings, dated 12.01.2003, issued by the Gram Panchayat, according them permission to construct houses. It was only on 04.05.2003, that a requisition had emerged from the 5th respondent for acquisition of the land. By that time, the petitioners have constructed the houses. At any rate, as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e., 02.11.2004, the houses were very much in existence. This is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. The relevant portion thereof reads as under: "It is submitted that as per the Survey conducted by the Surveyor of this office there were (170) structures are existing, but as per SCCL, report it is (109) only as they have not taken the trees, Hand pumps, Mosques and Gram Panchayat building at that time (10) structures to be shown in the name of minors and (2) structures to be constructed newly. Finally the list of (171) structures is prepared basing on the two video graphs as accepted by the SCCL, authorities. But the SCCL, authorities i.e., Requisitioning authorities have not accepted the two structures held by the present writ petitioners Sri Thatikonda Ramulu and his Son Srinivas though existing at the time of survey held by the Surveyor are new and that they were having houses at Ladnapur (V) and availed compensation." The reason for exclusion of the houses either in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or in the award appears to be that the 5th respondent did not agree for it. 7. The record discloses that the petitioners were residents of a different village and on being displaced, they have migrated to another village and constructed houses by obtaining permission of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to plead any ground of mala fide on the part of the petitioners. 8. Even assuming that the petitioners constructed the houses, after they came to know that the land was going to be acquired, that fact cannot relieve the respondents from their obligation to pay compensation. Therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to plead any ground of mala fide on the part of the petitioners. 8. Even assuming that the petitioners constructed the houses, after they came to know that the land was going to be acquired, that fact cannot relieve the respondents from their obligation to pay compensation. What becomes material and important is the state of affairs existing as on the date of the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The respondents are under obligation to pay compensation for anything, that existed as on the date of notification. They cannot go into the intention behind the constructions over the acquired land. 9. It has already been pointed out that the houses of the petitioners were very much in existence as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is unnecessary for publication of a fresh notification to cover the houses. Once the land is acquired, the claim for payment of compensation for the super structures can be subject matter of an award enquiry. Since the award did not include the houses of the petitioners on a wrong assumption, the 1st respondent is directed to pass supplementary award, granting compensation for the houses constructed by the petitioners over the acquired land, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.