Judgment At the Interlocutory stage, these Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. W.P.No.11492/2006 is filed by two individuals who claim to be owners of Plot No.15, for a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation for plot bearing No.15, admeasuring 335 sq. yards (226 sq. mts) in Sy.No.86 of Gaganmahal village, (Musheerabad Taluq), Hyderabad District (Part of T.S.No.7/2 Part Block No.E Ward No.73). While the said Writ Petition is pending, award was passed by respondent No.3 on 23-8-2006. As respondent No.3 has not awarded interest on solatium and additional market value, one Karnati Sri Ramulu who claims to be the owner of Plot No.13, filed W.P.No.19117/2006 for a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the said amounts. In W.P.No.11492/2006, respondent Nos.4 and 5 i.e., Government of Andhra Pradesh and P.Rajaiah were added as parties under the orders of this court dated 1-9-2006 in WPMP No.18652/2006. As regards W.P.No.11492/2006, with the passing of the award after filing of the Writ Petition, the cause therein does not survive for adjudication. With regard to W.P.No.19117/2006, at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition while fairly conceding that in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India 2001(7) SCC 211 as clarified in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India 2006(8) SCC 457, the owner of the land is entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value. He has however raised objection to maintainability of the Writ Petition. According to him, if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the award, the only remedy for him is to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") to the competent civil court. Sri Srikanth, learned counsel representing Sri M.Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners placed before the court the Judgment of this court in K.Peda Venkataiah and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 2004(3) ALT 78 (DB) wherein this court inter alia held as under: “24. It is fairly well settled and needs no restatement in our hands that existence of a statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ. It may be one of the factors, which may have to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs. It is fairly well settled and needs no restatement in our hands that existence of a statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ. It may be one of the factors, which may have to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs. 25. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us is a member (B.Sudershan Reddy.,J) in Estate Officer and Manager (Recoveries), APIICL Vs.Recovery Officer ( 2003(5) ALT 216 = 2003(5) ALD 599 (DB) held: “It is a rule of self imposed limitation, a rule of policy, and discretion rather than a rule of law. The Court in exceptional cases can always issue a writ such as a writ of certiorari, notwithstanding the fact that the statutory remedies have not been exhausted. There are at least two well-recognised exceptions to the doctrine with regard to the exhaustion of statutory remedies. In the first place, it is well settled that where proceedings are taken before a Tribunal under a provision of law, which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court under Article 226 for issuing appropriate writs. In the second place, the doctrine has no application in a case where the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice.” 26. In the similar manner, the existence of a statutory remedy shall have no application in a case where the impugned order is a void one. 27. It is a true and 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. 27. It is a true and 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 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 said 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 as to what would be the market value of the acquired land. 28. …. 29. That apart, we have already noticed the facts and circumstances under which the Revenue Division Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer had taken such decision awarding actual compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square yard though having fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.240/- per square yard from the date of notification. The award makes an interesting reading, which speaks for itself. The compensation awarded to the first appellant herein is in the following manner: “Sri K. Peda Venkataiah, S/o. late K. Pullaiah has appeared before me and deposed that the land is his (Grandfather property) ancestral property and prayed to pay compensation and claimed the market value @ Rs. 900/- per square yard but failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim. The value of the lands has been fixed (a). 900/- per square yard but failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim. The value of the lands has been fixed (a). Rs.240/-per square yard from the date of notification as discussed in the valuation. (Emphasis is of ours.)” Value of the land @ Rs. 30/- per square yard. Ac. 0.05 guntas (605 square yards) of Sy.No. 154/2 of 30. It is a peculiar case where the value of the land has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer himself at Rs.240.00 per square yard with reference to the date of notification proposing to acquire the land i.e, 10-7-2000, but the actual amount of compensation is calculated at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard, which is totally untenable and unsustainable. This Court in A.S.No. 833 of 1993 assessed the market value of the adjoining lands at Rs.30/- per square yard, which were acquired for the very same purpose under notification dated 4-9-1982. The same has been adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer, obviously, under the directions of the then Joint Collector. It is SomidiVillage 18,150-00 Solatium @ Rs. 30/- 5,445-00 Additional Market value @ 12% from date of notification to Award i.e., 10-7-2000 to 24-12-2002 - 2 years 5 months 14 days 5,348-20 Interest 4% from 2-6-1983 to 29-4-1984 -10 months 27 days 659-00 Interest 9% from 30-4-1984 to 1-6-1984 - 1 month 1 day 141-21 Interest 15% from 2-6-1984 to 24-12-2002 - 18 years 6 months 22 days 50,532-62 ---------------- Grant Total Rs. 80,275-93 ---------------- On a careful analysis of the above noted Judgment, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down therein squarely applies to this case. The award is concededly contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court. Therefore, this case also falls in the category of exceptional cases wherein this court can entertain a Writ Petition filed bye-passing the alternative remedy. In the face of the admitted legal position, it would be futile to drive the petitioner to seek reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned Government Pleader on the exceptional facts of this case, is rejected. In the face of the admitted legal position, it would be futile to drive the petitioner to seek reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned Government Pleader on the exceptional facts of this case, is rejected. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that there is a dispute regarding entitlement for compensation between the petitioner and respondent No.5 apart from a dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement for receiving the compensation and that the same is referred to the court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which has taken the dispute on file and the same is presently pending. He further submitted that the compensation amount was already deposited to the, credit of the said proceedings. In the light of the above facts, W.P.No.11492/2006 is disposed of as infructuous. W.P.No.19117/2006 is allowed by directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pass a supplementary award by awarding interest on solatium and additional market value and deposit the award amount to the credit of the proceedings pending before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel, WPMP No.14274/2006 and 27920/2006 in W.P.No.11492/2006 and WPMP Nos.24059/2006 and 27251/2006 in W.P.No.19117/206 are disposed of as infructuous.