Judgment : The petitioner, a limited company owned an extent of Ac.9.311/2 guntas of land in Survey No.355 of Dundigal Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with building, trees, borewell etc., thereon. The land was within the alignment of the Outer Ring Road, Hyderabd. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was published on 23.04.2005 and one year thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 02.05.2006. Initially an award in accordance with the provisions of the Act was passed on 03.05.2008 determining the market value for the land at the rate of Rs.4,75,000/-per acre. No compensation was awarded for the building on the ground that the report of valuation thereof was not received yet. The Government issued a G.O. providing for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired for the Outer Ring Road through the medium of Lok Adalat. The petitioner availed that remedy. The Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District passed the award on 06.12.2008 whereunder a sum of Rs.1,32,13,125/-was paid as compensation for the land, trees, boreweell etc. The determination of the building/structures did not take place even by that time. At a later point of time, the petitioner was requested to receive compensation for the structures, stating that they have since been valued. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 06.08.2010 stating that according to the information received by them, the buildings were valued at Rs.2,61,000/-and since the same is too low, the matter may be referred to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Through Memo, dated 12.07.2011, the respondent herein rejected the request of the petitioner, stating that all other components of the compensation were paid on the basis of the consent and the question of referring the matter to Civil Court does not arise. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. The petitioner contends that though a consent award was passed in respect of the land, trees and borewells, a specific mention was made both in the general award and the consent award to the effect that no compensation was awarded for the building either under the general award or consent award. He contends that once the determination of compensation for the structures was deferred for want of valuation report, the subsequent determination cannot be treated as the one on the basis of the consent. The respondent filed a counter affidavit. He contends that once the determination of compensation for the structures was deferred for want of valuation report, the subsequent determination cannot be treated as the one on the basis of the consent. The respondent filed a counter affidavit. According to him the entire property that was acquired from the petitioner was the subject matter of the consent award and the mere fact that the value of the building was furnished at a later point of time does not change the character. Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the value of the building was determined with the consent of the petitioner, the right to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot be denied to his client. Sri Y.Ravindra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the Lok Adalat stating that he has received compensation that was determined with the consent of the parties and that the possession of the land including structures thereof was surrendered without reserving any right. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority initiated proceedings for acquisition of the land for the purpose of laying the Outer Ring Road. The petitioner owned Ac.9.311/2 guntas of land and various structures were existing thereon. Initially, an award as provided for under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act was passed by the respondent on 03.05.2008. The market value of the land was determined at Rs.4,75,000/-per acre. In the ordinary course of things, the petitioner would have received that amount and sought for reference under Section 18 o the Act. However availing the benefit under a G.O. issued by the Government, he sought for reference of the matter to the Lok Adalat. In the general award dated 03.05.2008 a specific mention was made to the effect that the compensation for the structures is not determined for want of valuation by the concerned agency. The same state of affairs remained even by the time the consent award was passed. The result is that there did not exist any agreement between the petitioner and the respondent as regards the value of the structures. In case, the respondent wanted to treat the value of the structures also as the one on the basis of the consent, he ought to have put it to the petitioner before making a final determination. The result is that there did not exist any agreement between the petitioner and the respondent as regards the value of the structures. In case, the respondent wanted to treat the value of the structures also as the one on the basis of the consent, he ought to have put it to the petitioner before making a final determination. Without resorting to that, he unilaterally decided the value of the buildings at Rs.2,61,000/-. Once it emerges that the consent of the petitioner was not obtained before determining the value of the buildings, a right accrues to the petitioner to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is well settled that the remedy under Section 18 of the Act cannot be extended to a person, who received the compensation with consent. There is noting in the Act, which prohibits part of the compensation being paid with the consent and the compensation being determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on his own accord for the remaining part. While for the first part, there cannot be any reference at all, the remedy under Section 18 of the Act cannot be denied vis-à-vis the second part. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Memo, dated 12.07.2011 is set aside. The respondent is directed to refer the matter, pertaining to the value of the structures, that existed on the land acquired from the petitioner, to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.