JUDGMENT M.Ganga Rao, J. - This Court felt it appropriate to pass common order in all the above writ petitions as the petitioners in all the writ petitions raised common question of fact and law and challenged the consent award passed under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and the learned counsels also are one and the same in all the writ petitions. 2. The petitioners are the agriculturists filed this writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing Award No.29/2006-07 dated 09.11.2006 without following the procedure prescribed under Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992 (for short 'the Rules, 1992') and Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the award and consider the case of the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act. 3. Heard Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners' lands were acquired for the construction of Pathikonda Balancing Reservoir under HNSS Irrigation Scheme, by issuing Notification under Section 4(1) and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 09.05.2006 and 21.06.2006 respectively. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, based on the prevailing sale transactions, fixed market value of Rs.41,000/- per acre for category No.1 lands and Rs.48,5000/- per acre for category No.2 lands along with statutory benefits. The Land Acquisition Officer had not served any notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Act on the petitioners. Before passing the award, no enquiry was conducted for determining the market value of the lands acquired. The petitioners were never make any request to the respondents to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for category No.1 lands and Rs.1,50,000/- for category No.2 lands. The respondents had not followed the procedure contemplated under the Rules, 1992. However, the 3rd respondent passed the consent award No.29/2006-07 and paid the compensation, which is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners are entitled for higher compensation as the lands are high yielding and costly lands, whereas the petitioners were paid only meagre amounts as compensation to their lands. 5. The respondents had not followed the procedure contemplated under the Rules, 1992. However, the 3rd respondent passed the consent award No.29/2006-07 and paid the compensation, which is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners are entitled for higher compensation as the lands are high yielding and costly lands, whereas the petitioners were paid only meagre amounts as compensation to their lands. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, while reiterating the averments of counter, would contend that the petitioners' lands along with other lands were acquired under the provisions of the Act for construction of Pathikonda Balancing Reservoir under HNSS Irrigation Scheme. The petitioners were paid compensation as per the consent award passed under the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act, by following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 1992. Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the consent award No.29/2006-07 and payment of compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the petitioners' lands were acquired under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of construction of Pathikonda Balancing Reservoir at Pandikona Village under HNSS scheme. There is no dispute with regard to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is dispensed with invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. The 3rd respondent, Land Acquisition Officer, fixed the market value of the lands, based on the prevailing registered sale deeds of the adjacent lands at Rs.41,000/- per acre for category No.1 (dry land) and Rs.48,500/- per acre for category No.2 (irrigated land), issued notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act to all the petitioners on 14.09.2006 and 16.09.2006 to attend the enquiry on 03.10.2006. The petitioners, on receipt of notices, attended before the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.09.2006 and produced documentary evidence for establishing their title. 7. The petitioners, on receipt of notices, attended before the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.09.2006 and produced documentary evidence for establishing their title. 7. During the enquiry, the petitioners and other land owners had agreed to give consent for acquisition and requested to refer the matter to the District Level Negotiations Committee for fixation of higher market value as they have dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, Notices in Form-I were issued on 30.09.2006 and notice was published in the village by beat of tom tom about acquisition of the lands of the petitioners and other land owners, to appear before the District Level Negotiations Committee on 10.10.2006. The District Level Negotiations Committee, after hearing the land owners, fixed the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.80,000/- for dry land and Rs.95,000/- irrigated dry lands inclusive of all the statutory benefits against the request of the petitioners to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to dry land and Rs.1,80,000/- per acre to the irrigated dry land. 8. The petitioners along with other land owners agreed for the rate fixed by the District Level Negotiations Committee and signed Form-III and Form-IV on 10.10.2006. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Collector has passed the consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act, paid compensation to the land owners including the petitioners. The Land Acquisition Officer also issued notices under Section 12(2) of the Act to the petitioners to receive the compensation. Accordingly, the petitioners have received compensation on 09.11.2006. After lapse of one year, the petitioners started litigating the claim for higher compensation and making allegation of breaching the provisions of law while fixing and payment of compensation. 9. But, the documents filed along with counter clearly demonstrate that the respondent authorities strictly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 1992 in passing the consent award No.29/2006-07 and payment of compensation. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Land Acquisition Officer had not served any notices; no enquiry was conducted for determining the market value of the lands acquired; and the respondents had not followed the procedure contemplated under the Rules, 1992, merit no consideration. This Court, by accepting the contentions of the learned Government Pleader and perusal of the record, came to the conclusion that there are no irregularities occurred while passing the consent award. This Court, by accepting the contentions of the learned Government Pleader and perusal of the record, came to the conclusion that there are no irregularities occurred while passing the consent award. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were threatened to receive the compensation merit no consideration. In respect of the consent award passed under Section 11(2) of the Act, no reference could be made under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation. Hence, the writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall also stand dismissed.