Judgment : The petitioners are the owners of about Ac.1.00 of land in T.S.Nos.11, 12, 13/2, 13/3 and 14/2 of Lingampally Revenue Village, Himayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad. It abuts a nala running from Hussain sagar to Moosi. The then Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad initiated steps to widen the nala. The land of the petitioners to a substantial extent viz., 3500 sq. yards was going to be affected. Complaining that they are sought to be dispossessed by the Corporation without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioners filed O.S.1229 of 1994 in the Court of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said suit was decreed on 31.12.1998. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 10.09.2007 was published by the District Collector, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein. This was followed by publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 02.03.1998. The petitioners did not challenge the proceedings under the Act i.e., notification and the declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 respectively of the Act. The award was passed on 27.02.2009 determining the compensation payable to the petitioners at Rs.4,33,197/-. The petitioners challenge the award on two grounds. The first ground urged by the petitioners is that the Special Deputy Collector, the third respondent herein, was not conferred with the powers of the Land Acquisition Officer i.e., Collector and the award passed by him is without jurisdiction. Reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.537 dated 26.05.2009, through which the Special Deputy Collector was conferred with the power to pass awards and to discharge the functions of Collector. The other ground urged by the petitioners is that the third respondent acted in a patently illegal and capricious manner. It is stated that the same officer prepared a provisional value statement determining the compensation at Rs.5,57,62,498/-for the land of the petitioners and for extraneous and oblivious reasons, he has drastically reduced the compensation to Rs.4,33,197/-by preparing another statement. It is also stated that the minimum compensation awarded by the same officer, for the land abutting the nala was Rs.9,900/-per sq. yard, whereas in the instant case, the compensation does not work out even at Rs.100/-per sq. yard. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. yard, whereas in the instant case, the compensation does not work out even at Rs.100/-per sq. yard. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. In the ordinary course of things, the owner of the land has to approach the civil Court by filing an application under Section 18 of the Act, if he is not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, if the award is passed by an officer, who is not vested with the power, the remedy under Section 18 of the Act is totally inadequate. The lapse in this regard goes to the root of the matter and the Court of reference cannot deal with this aspect. The Land Acquisition Act has prescribed the procedure to be followed in the matter of acquisition of lands and conferred different powers on various authorities. In the context of passing awards, Section 11 of the Act confers powers upon “Collector”. The officers of the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer are conferred with such powers through general orders. As regards acquisition of land for the benefit of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, G.O.Ms.No.537 dated 26.05.2009 was issued conferring such powers upon the Special Deputy Collector, attached to the organization. In other words, the Special Deputy Collector derives the power to pass awards underthe Act through the said G.O. Prior to that, it was only the Collector who is competent to pass awards. Therefore, a serious jurisdictional error has crept into the award. On this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. A perusal of the award dated 27.02.2009 discloses that the compensation was determined at Rs.4,33,197/-. However, in the concluding paragraph of the award, the figure Rs.5,57,62,498/-was mentioned. The said paragraph reads as under: “The compensation amount of Rs.5,57,62,498/-is awarded in favour of Sri 1. M.Trilok Singh, S/o late Narayan Singh and 2. M.Dalveer Singh, S/o Narayan Singh equally as shown below:-” The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the officer has deliberately slashed the compensation to drastic level i.e., Rs.4,33,197/-though, even according to his own statement, the compensation was Rs.5,57,62,498/-. This Court called for the record from the third respondent. M.Trilok Singh, S/o late Narayan Singh and 2. M.Dalveer Singh, S/o Narayan Singh equally as shown below:-” The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the officer has deliberately slashed the compensation to drastic level i.e., Rs.4,33,197/-though, even according to his own statement, the compensation was Rs.5,57,62,498/-. This Court called for the record from the third respondent. According to it, the Special Deputy Collector, by name, N.Raghunatha Rao, prepared provisional value statement in the year 2008 for a sum of Rs.5,54,00,800/-. However, shortly thereafter, he prepared another provisional value statement on 20.02.2009 indicating the compensation as Rs.3,82,252/-. The awards passed in respect of the lands acquired for the same purpose revealed that the compensation awarded by the same officer ranged from Rs.34,000/-to Rs.9,900/-. Even for the land of the petitioners, he felt that compensation at the rate of Rs.11,680/-per sq. yard deserves to be awarded. He did not mention that the authority, who is conferred with the power to approve the provisional value statement, has raised any objection. The inescapable conclusion is that the officer has resorted to such patent illegality for extraneous reasons and he has trampled upon the right of the petitioners to receive just and proper compensation. The Government must enquire into the circumstances under which he resorted to such an exercise. With immediate effect, he shall not be permitted to discharge any functions under the Act. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed as under: (i) The impugned award dated 27.02.2009 is set aside for want of jurisdiction; (ii) The person incumbent, who is conferred with the power to discharge the functions under Section 11 of the Act, shall pass a fresh award, in accordance with law, duly taking into account, the contentions of the petitioners as to the value and other aspects, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (iii) The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, shall cause enquiry into the manner in which the Special Deputy Collector, by name, N.Raghunatha Rao, determined the compensation for the land of the petitioners; and shall with immediate effect ensure that the said officer does not discharge any functions under the Land Acquisition Act. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of disposal of the writ petition, the miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.