ORDER: This petitioners filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring a. The proceedings in Rc.No.27/2021/SSRI, dated .07.2021 of the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, not bonafide and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in relation to an extent of 4030 Sq. Mts., land in Sy.No.15/1A correlated to 15/1C, Sy.No.15/6A correlated to 15/6, 15/7B correlated to 15/7 and 15/8B correlated 15/8 of Gavarapalem Ward, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District by adding the value of the structure and gravel as fixed by AEE (R & B). b. The endorsement L.PR.No.181/2021/SA, dated 12.07.2021 issued by the 6th respondent as arbitrary, not bonafide, illegal and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners based on the endorsement L.PR.No.181/2021/SA, dated 09.04.2021 by adding the value of the structure and gravel as fixed by AEE (R & B) by modifying Award No.46 of 2018, dated 05.11.2018 to suspend proceedings of Rc.No.27/2021/SSRI, dated .07.2021 of the 4th respondent pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and stay the dispossession of the petitioner pursuant to RC.No.27/2021/SSRI, dated 07.2021 of the 4th respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition. To appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the extent of land under acquisition in all sub-divisions of Sy.No.15 on the Western side of National Highway of Gavarapalem Ward, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District with the assistance of Assistance Director Survey and Settlement, Collectorate Office, Visakhapatnam and file report with plan pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass” 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that, the 1st petitioner purchased an extent of 23 cents equivalent to 1113.2 Sq. Yds., or 930.77 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.5/7 and 2 cents equivalent to 96.8 Sq. Yds., or 80.94 Sq. Mts., under a registered document bearing No.4471 of 2002, dated 24.12.2002 from Karri Suryanarayana, S/o. Appala Naidu and his sons. The 1st petitioner also purchased 15 cents equivalent to 726 Sq. Yds., or 607.03 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.15/8 under a registered document bearing No.4472 of 2002, dated 24.12.2002 from Karri Naga Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Venku Naidu and another. Mts., under a registered document bearing No.4471 of 2002, dated 24.12.2002 from Karri Suryanarayana, S/o. Appala Naidu and his sons. The 1st petitioner also purchased 15 cents equivalent to 726 Sq. Yds., or 607.03 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.15/8 under a registered document bearing No.4472 of 2002, dated 24.12.2002 from Karri Naga Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Venku Naidu and another. The 1st petitioner further purchased 31 cents equivalent to 1500.4 Sq. Yds., or 1254.53 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.15/6 and 2 cents equivalent 96.8 cents and 80.94 Sq. Mts., under registered document bearing No.2048 of 2003, dated 07.06.2003 from Karri Simhachalam, S/o. Venku Naidu and his sons. The 1st petitioner further purchased 33 cents equivalent to 1597.2 Sq. Yds., or 1335.46 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.15/2 and 2 cents equivalent to 96.8 Sq. Yds., or 80.94 Sq. Mts., under a registered document bearing No.2049 of 2003, dated 07.06.2003 from Karri Surya Narayana and his son Karri Surya Nageswara Rao. 3. The 2nd petitioner purchased 40 cents equivalent to 1936 Sq. Yds., or 1618.74 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.15/1C and 2 cents equivalent to 96.8 Sq. Yds., or 80.94 Sq. Mts., under a registered document bearing No.4019 of 2006, dated 29.07.2006 from Karri Naganna, S/o. Paradesi Naidu and his sons. Since the date of purchase, the petitioners is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said land and there is no dispute with regard to the purchase. 4. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in total purchased Ac.1.50 cents equivalent to 7260 Sq. Yds., equivalent 6070.285 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.15/1A, 15/1C, 15/2, 15/6, 15/7 and 15/8, after verifying the settlement fair addangals, pattadar pass books by issued by the 6th respondent of the land on ground, having purchased the same under different sale deeds, situated at Gavarapalem Ward, Anakapalli, Visakhapatam District and details are also abstracted hereunder. Document No. Date of Document Sy.No. Extent in Sy. Yds Extent in Sq. Mtrs. Extent in Cents 4471/2002 24.12.2002 15/7 15/1a 1113.2 96.8 930.77 80.94 23 cents 02 cents 4472/2002 24.12.2002 15/8 726 607.03 15 cents 2048/2003 7/6/2003 15/6 15/1a 1500.4 96.8 1254.53 80.94 31 cents 02 cents 2049/2003 7/6/2003 15/2 15/1a 1597.2 96.8 1335.46 80.94 33 cents 02 cents 4019/06 29.7.2006 15/1c 15/1a 1936 96.8 1618.74 80.94 40 cents 02 cents TOTAL 7260 6070.285 150 cents 5. Hence the said land referred above is only house plots and undergone foundation work and further construction is proposed in the plots. Hence the said land referred above is only house plots and undergone foundation work and further construction is proposed in the plots. As there was foundation by trespass by name Dilip Building Construction Company trespassing into our sites along with proclainer, dozer and trippers, who have damaged office building material and took away 75 loads of sand on RR Stone that were dumped for our on-going construction of wall and formation of road in the petitioners sites. The petitioner was constrained to immediately lodge a police complaint that was registered as FIR No.61/2020, dated 13.02.2020 in the Police Station, Anakapalli TN/Limits, which is pending for investigation. 6. Subsequently, the petitioners came to know that part of the lands held by them is being acquired pursuant to a notification published in Andhra Pradesh by the Government of India, National Highway Authorities of India Public Notice R.C.No.114/2016/S.A., dated 09.02.2018 issued Under Section 3G (11a) of National Highways of India Act in relation to Anandapuram Anakapalli Section and Sabbavaram to Sheelanagar (old NH-5) for constructing and widening of four (4) and six (6) ways road published on 13.02.2018 in Andhra Prabha Daily. 7. As per S.O. 3370(E), dated 18.09.2019 notification was issued in relation land in to Sy.No.15/2A and 15/2B as follows: Sy. No. Type of Land Nature of Land Area in hectare Name of Land owner/Interested Person part Sy. No. 15/2A Private Wet land 0.1416 Komanapalli Venkata Rao and others 15/2B Private Wet Land 0.004 Komanapalli Venkata Rao and others 8. The petitioners further submit that on perusal of the above paper publication dated 13.02.2018 of Andhra Prabha, they came to know the following in relation to land in Sy.No.15 of Gavarapalem Ward, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. S. No. Type of Land Nature of Land Sy.Mtrs/ Ac/Cents Name of the Land owner/Inherited person part Sy.No. Pattadar/ Possessor Construction/Details of Trees 15/1A Private Wet Land 1619(0.40) Komanapalli Venkat Rao and others P & I Foundation 15/6A Private Wet Land 1093(0.27) Karri Simhachalam and others P & I Foundation 15/7A2 Private Wet Land 850(0.21) Karri Suryanarayana and others P & I Foundation 15/8A2 Private Wet Land 728(0.18) Konathala Ananda Srinivasa Rao P & I Foundation Total 4290(1.06) 9. The petitioners made an application on 25.07.2020 under Right to Information Act, to furnish the documents (i) Draft Declaration (ii) Survey Number Sub Division Record (Sy.Nos.15/1C, 15/1A, 15/2, 15/6, 15/7 & 15/8) (iii) Award copy and (iv) Claim Statement. In response to the same, the petitioners provided a copy of the notification issued by the Government of India under Section 3D of the National Highway Authority of India Act and that the petitioners also informed that, no body appeared during the award enquiry, even though notice was published and as such award was passed. Neither names of the petitioners appeared in the notification nor did any notice of award enquiry was given to them. In relation to the request of providing Survey and Sub-Division record (Sy.No.15/1a and 1c), it was stated that the information asked by the petitioners such as Plans, FMB and sub division statement will be furnished after completion of next action that award copy and claim statements were provided under the provisions of Right to Information Act (RTI). 10. The petitioners pointed out that without issuing any notice to the petitioners, without determination of compensation, the petitioners entitled to, without determining the extent of land is acquired under the above notification and without demarcating the remaining extent of land, the respondents are proceeding further, there upon the petitioners approached this High Court by filing Writ Petition No.15822 of 2020, and after hearing the submissions of counsels of both the sides, the said writ petition was disposed of, passed an order as follows: “Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the both sides, this Court is of the view that the matter can be disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No.5 to examine the representation dated 16.03.2020 made by the petitioners by taking into consideration the registered sale deeds in support of our claim in properties which are being acquired for the purpose of laying National Highway. The respondent No.5 is further directed to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order”. 11. The respondent No.5 is further directed to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order”. 11. The petitioners further submitted that after disposal of the said writ petition, the 5th respondent has issued notice Rc.No.98/2020/SSRI, dated 21.09.2020 asking the petitioners, to furnish (i) affidavit (ii) Land handing over receipt (iii) Registered sale deeds in original for verification (iv) Bank Account Number and (v) PAN No. As the petitioners requested for some time i.e., ten (10) days was granted and directed the petitioners to attend before respondent No.5 office on 12.12.2020 at 11:00 a.m. along with above documents, accordingly on 12.10.2020, the 1st petitioner along with 2nd petitioner are once again reiterated their case, submitted sale deeds along with other documents, as demanded by the respondents. 12. The respondent No.5 passed an order in Rc.No.98/2020/SSRI, dated 10.12.2020, on consideration of the representation and alleged compliance of the orders in W.P.No.15822 of 2020, informed that the compensation awarded for other survey Nos.15/1A, 15/6A, 15/7A2 and 15/8A2 falling in the alignment is in the deposit vide Award No.46/2018, dated 05.11.2018, as no one attended the award enquiry and submitted the documents, the same is not in compliance of the order passed in Writ Petition No.15822 of 2020, directed the 5th respondent to examine the representation dated 16.03.2020 and pass appropriate orders after clearly mentioning that an award was already passed and the petitioners are approached the respondent authorities along with registered title deed, but no action was taken. However, Award No.66 of 2020, dated 05.10.2020 in relation to land in respect of 1335 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.15/2A, 81 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.15/2A and 40 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.15/2B, but compensation amount in relation to the same will be deposited in the account of the petitioners and accordingly representation was disposed of. Despite considering the entitlement of the petitioners’ compensation in relation to the land considering title, no notice was given to the petitioners for award enquiry. While notification issued under Section 3D, shows the name of Komanapalli Venkat Rao and others as owners/interested persons, after taking into consideration, the documents produced by the petitioners, the 4th respondent passed the award by accepting the ownership to the said land and accordingly granted compensation in favour of the petitioners. 13. While notification issued under Section 3D, shows the name of Komanapalli Venkat Rao and others as owners/interested persons, after taking into consideration, the documents produced by the petitioners, the 4th respondent passed the award by accepting the ownership to the said land and accordingly granted compensation in favour of the petitioners. 13. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 after receipt of the order, addressed a letter for Demarcation of the remaining land belongs to the petitioners after acquisition and payment of compensation in relation to land acquired in Sy.Nos.15/1A, 15/6A, 15/7B and 15/8B informing in addition to compensation in relation to 1335 Sq. Mtrs., in Sy.No.15/2A, the petitioners are also entitled for compensation for an extent of 1093 Sq. Mtrs., in Sy.No.15/6, 809 Sq. Mtrs., in Sy.No.15/1A as these extents are falling in alignment based on the petitioners physical verification of the alignment. So, accordingly the respondents make compensation determined as per Award No.46/18, dated 05.11.2018. In Sy.No.15/6 only 1093 Sq. Mtrs., was acquired as per the notification and there was request to demarcate the extent of land after leaving 161.53 Sq. Mtrs., as required under National Highway Act, 1956. In Sy.No.15/7 only 850 Sq. Mtrs., was acquired as per the notification, requested to demarcate the extent of land acquired after leaving 80.77 Sq. Mtrs.. That in addition to, the petitioners were also holding 1619 Sq. Mtrs., in Sy.No.15/1C respectively and that as the said land is not notified for acquisition. 14. Based on the representation made by the petitioners, to conduct survey, the land in the possession and enjoyment, the 6th respondent on the directions of the respondent No.5, directed the Mandal Surveyor to inspect the land and conduct survey physically. Accordingly, Mandal Surveyor, based on the records available in his office and after inspecting the lands and duly conducting survey stated that the petitioners are in the possession and enjoyment of the lands in following S.Nos: 15-1A Extent = 387.2 Sq. Yds (0.08 cents) 15-1C Extent = 1936 Sq. Yds (0.40 cents) 15-2 Extent = 1597.2 Sq. Yds (0.33 cents) 15-2B Extent = 48.4 Sq. Yds (0.01 cents) 15-6 Extent = 1403.6 Sq. Yds (0.29 cents) 15-7 Extent = 1113.2 Sq. Yds (0.23 cents) 15-8 Extent = 726 Sq. Yds (0.15 cents) Total 7211.6 Sq. Yds (Ac.1.49 cents) 15. Yds (0.08 cents) 15-1C Extent = 1936 Sq. Yds (0.40 cents) 15-2 Extent = 1597.2 Sq. Yds (0.33 cents) 15-2B Extent = 48.4 Sq. Yds (0.01 cents) 15-6 Extent = 1403.6 Sq. Yds (0.29 cents) 15-7 Extent = 1113.2 Sq. Yds (0.23 cents) 15-8 Extent = 726 Sq. Yds (0.15 cents) Total 7211.6 Sq. Yds (Ac.1.49 cents) 15. Further it was informed by the Mandal Surveyor that as per ground position and that as per, settlement register (settlement fair addangal) and as per online records available the following is the position: 15-1A Extent = 0.08 cents 15-1C Extent = 0.40 cents 15-2 Extent = 0.33 cents 15-6 Extent = 0.31 cents 15-7 Extent = 0.23 cents 15-8 Extent = 0.15 cents Total Ac.1.50 cents 16. Based on the settlement fair addangals and verifying the pattadar passbooks and relevant records and link documents, the petitioners purchased the land admeasuring an extent of 7260 Sq. Yds. However, described on the survey made by Mandal Surveyor, the petitioners are in actual possession and enjoyment of the 7211.6 Sq. Yds. That the sketch issued by the Mandal Surveyor is the actual representation of the possession on land. Based on the material, Mandal Surveyor has provided with an endorsement L.PR.No.181/2021/SA, dated 09.04.2021, along with sketch. Accordingly, the same offered and requested to surrender the entire land to the National Highway and accordingly receive compensation for the same. 17. The petitioners informed to the office of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam on 24.05.2021, about the representation and issue relating to acquisition. The Special Deputy Collector, National Highway-16, Deputy Tahsildar, SDC Office, Revenue Inspector, Surveyor - National Highway were present during in the meeting, the petitioners pointed out about the endorsement, but no action was taken. 17. The petitioners informed to the office of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam on 24.05.2021, about the representation and issue relating to acquisition. The Special Deputy Collector, National Highway-16, Deputy Tahsildar, SDC Office, Revenue Inspector, Surveyor - National Highway were present during in the meeting, the petitioners pointed out about the endorsement, but no action was taken. However, the petitioners submitted a representation 16.06.2021 and on the basis of the same action, the petitioners are invited office of the 5th respondent on 24.06.2021 for submission of title document No.2049/2003 pertaining to land in Sy.No.15/2 and when the petitioners pointed about the valuation of structures and gravel filing, after directing the petitioners to take away the original sale deeds and submit the objection with regard to valuation for gravel and boundary wall structure is cleared vide Rc.No.98/2020/SSRI, dated 18.06.2021, the 5th respondent had wrote a letter to the Project Director, NHAI-PIU, Visakhapatnam and inspected the said land on 24.05.2021 and 31.05.2021 and the valuation report was given for the compound wall of length (RM) 112 and Length (RFT) 368.36. Further, the objection raised on 16.06.2021, the 5th respondent directed the valuer to reassess the valuation in the presence of applicant in co-ordination with R&B officials and intimate the date of inspection. Joint measurement were taken on 01.07.2021 for the wall that was destroyed and existing wall and also gravel in petitioners presence and the Licensed Surveyor, NHAI, AEE (R&B), Anakapalli and sketch was prepared and written by Licensed Surveyor, NHAI, wherein it is stated that besides the land in Sy.No.15/1C, 15/2, 15/6, 15/7 and 15/8 it is clearly written that western portion of all those 15/1a and a copy of the said sketch was provided to 5th respondent. However, the valuation report is not provided till date. 18. Accordingly, vide L.P.R.No.181/2021/SA, dated 12.07.2021, an endorsement was issued and received by the petitioners on 14.07.2021, informing the petitioners that as per the joint survey, the petitioners are in possession of Ac.1.41 cents. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent vide reference NHAI/PIU-VSP/AND-AKP/3H/2020- 21/8270, dated 31.07.2021 addressed a letter to the 4th respondent enclosing a copy of the representation and requested to look into the matter and take further action, but no action was taken for payment of compensation in the entire lands. 19. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent vide reference NHAI/PIU-VSP/AND-AKP/3H/2020- 21/8270, dated 31.07.2021 addressed a letter to the 4th respondent enclosing a copy of the representation and requested to look into the matter and take further action, but no action was taken for payment of compensation in the entire lands. 19. However, after completion of entire process, the respondents issued notification, the following has been under the joint survey and endorsement given to the petitioners. a. A small strip of land, which would come to 8 cents, on the western side of Sy.No.15 was deleted and the same has completely disappeared in the joint survey sketch. When the existing National Highway passes on the eastern side of the lands, it is bizarre how the land on the western side has disappeared. The proposed alignment of the National Highway cannot happen without acquiring or taking possession of the 8 cents land from the petitioners. b. That as per the fair addangal of the village the northern portion of Sy.No.15 and the sketch provided by Mandal Surveyor, it is shown as 15/1C and as per the same, it has 124 * 318 links. However, as per the joint survey in the sketch, it is shown as 109 * 324 links. c. As per fair addangal and survey of 1981 and the sketch provided by Mandal Surveyor earlier, S.No.15/2A is shown as 128 * 302 link. However, as per the joint survey in the sketch, it is shown as 136 * 331 link. d. As per fair addangal and survey of 1981 and the sketch provided by Mandal Surveyor, S.No.15/6A is shown as 107 * 327 link. However, as per the joint survey in the sketch, it is shown as 102 * 314 link. e. As per fair addangal and survey of 1981 and the sketch provided by Mandal Surveyor, S.No.15/7A is shown as 107 * 233 link. However, as per the joint survey in the sketch, it is shown as 91 * 253 link. f. As per fair addangal and survey of 1981 and the sketch provided by Mandal Surveyor, S.No.15/8A is shown as 96 * 181 link. However, as per the joint survey in the sketch, it is shown as 104 * 182 link. 20. However, as per the joint survey in the sketch, it is shown as 91 * 253 link. f. As per fair addangal and survey of 1981 and the sketch provided by Mandal Surveyor, S.No.15/8A is shown as 96 * 181 link. However, as per the joint survey in the sketch, it is shown as 104 * 182 link. 20. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record written instructions from respondent No.4- Joint collector (RB & R) and CALA for National Highways-16 (LA), Visakhapatnam in Rc.No.27/2021/SSRI, dated 27.09.2021, whereas the award No.46/2018 was passed by the respondents. Since there is a dispute with regard to the extent of land acquired by the respondents, the compensation amount determined under said award was deposited in the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. It is therefore contended that the amount of compensation payable to this petitioners for the land in an extent of Ac.1.41 cents in Sy.No.15/1A, 15/1C, 15/2, 15/6, 15/7 and 15/8 situated at Anakapalli Village, Visakhapatnam District. 21. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondents with regard to the actual extent acquired, but a reference was made to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli under section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 by the respondents. If a dispute arises as to the apportionment of the compensation amount, a reference can be made Section 3 H(4) of the National Highways Act. But, in the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the apportionment of the compensation amount. Hence, the reference under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli is illegal and arbitrary, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition. 22. Whereas the Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that as there is a dispute with regard to the compensation amount payable to the petitioners for the land acquired, respondents invoked the jurisdiction under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and deposited the amount to the credit of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. He further contended that the respondents deposited the compensation amount for an extent of Ac.1.50 cents, and the said extent is available as per settlement register (settlement fair adangal) and online records, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 23. He further contended that the respondents deposited the compensation amount for an extent of Ac.1.50 cents, and the said extent is available as per settlement register (settlement fair adangal) and online records, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 23. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point needs to be answered by this is as follows: Whether the deposit of compensation into the Court under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is in accordance with law? If not, whether the proceedings in Rc.No.27/2021/SSRI, dated .07.2021 of respondent No.4 be declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently, set aside while directing the respondents to pay compensation for the land acquired to an extent of 4030 Sq. Mts., in Sy.No.15/1A correlated to 15/1C, Sy.No.15/6A correlated to 15/6, 15/7B correlated to 15/7 and 15/8B correlated 15/8 of Gavarapalem Ward, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District by adding the value of the structure and gravel as fixed by AEE (R & B). POINT: 24. The petitioners are the owners of the land and the same was acquired by respondent No.5 for the purpose of widening of road. As there is a variation in the extent, there was lot of correspondence between the petitioners and respondent No.5, but the respondents instead of payment of compensation to the petitioners, deposited the amount to the credit of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli in terms of Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 vide proceedings Rc.No.27/2021/SSRI, dated .07.2021 impugned in the writ petition. 25. The material produced before this Court would show that there is a controversy regarding the extent of land acquired. But the said controversy is not resolved. 26. On 12.07.2021, the Tahsildar, Anakapalli issued endorsement certifying the extent available on ground. According to the said endorsement dated 12.07.2021 in L.PR.No.181/2021/C.S./dated 12.07.2021 total extent in Sy.No.15-1A, 15-1C, 15-2, 15-2B, 15-6, 15-7, 15-8 is 7211.6 Square Yards. According to the survey dated 04.06.2021 conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Surveyor, after scrutiny of the records, the land measurements are as follows: S. NO. SURVEY NO. PRESENT LAND ACQUISITION EXTENT AS PER RAMINENI VENKATESWARA RAO’S REGISTER DOCUMENT 04-06-2021 Ramineni Venkaterswara Rao in possession Confirmed measurements as per the joint survey Sq. Mts. AC. Cts DOCUMENT NO. SURVEY NO. EXTENT (Sq. Mts) Sq. Mts. AC. Cts Sq. Mts. AC. Cts Sq. Mts. AC. SURVEY NO. PRESENT LAND ACQUISITION EXTENT AS PER RAMINENI VENKATESWARA RAO’S REGISTER DOCUMENT 04-06-2021 Ramineni Venkaterswara Rao in possession Confirmed measurements as per the joint survey Sq. Mts. AC. Cts DOCUMENT NO. SURVEY NO. EXTENT (Sq. Mts) Sq. Mts. AC. Cts Sq. Mts. AC. Cts Sq. Mts. AC. Cts 1 15/1A 1619 0.40 4019/06 Dt.31-07-06 15/1C 1619 0.40 1619 0.40 15/1A 81 0.02 0 0.00 2 15/6A 1093 0.27 2048/2003 7-7-2003 15/6 1255 0.31 1093 0.27 15/1A 81 0.02 0 0.00 3 15/7B 809 0.20 4471/2002 24/12/2002 15/6 931 0.23 811 0.2050 22 0.001/2 15/1A 81 0.02 0 0.00 4 15/8B 728 8018 4472/2002 24/12/2002 15/8 607 0.15 809 0.20 81 0.02 5 15/2A 1335 0.33 2409/2003 7/6/2003 15/2 1335 0.33 1335 0.33 15/1A 81 0.02 0 0.00 6 15/2A 81 0.02 No Document Evidence - - 0.00 81 0.02 7 15/2B 40 0.01 - - 0.00 40 0.01 Total Extent 5705 1.41 6071 1.50 5788 1.435 103 0.02 ½ 27. A copy of Field Measurement Sketch is also placed on record to show the extent of land on ground and variation is Ac.0.02 ½ cents. On the basis of endorsement of the Tahsildar, the petitioner made a representation dated 12.07.2021 to respondent No.5 complaining about the extent actually available on ground and pointing out certain variations explaining the total extent in different survey numbers, requested to pay compensation for the entire land by giving correct demarcation of the land. Copy of the representation was also submitted to respondent No.4. But, the issue was not resolved by the competent authority despite representation, though the petitioners compelled to appear before the competent authority many times. Copy of the F.M.B. was submitted to different officials, but no purpose is served. Finally, the Tahsildar, Anakapalli issued endorsement L.P.R.No./2021/CS/dt. .06.2021 concluding that the variation is Ac.0.02 ½ cents. 28. Thus, the dispute is only with regard to the extent of land on ground acquired by respondent No.5 for the purpose of widening of road and the extent actually acquired. Thereupon, petitioner No.1 again submitted another request to respondent No.5 on 14.06.2021. On that a notice dated 18.06.2021 in Rc.No.98/2020/SSRI was issued by respondent No.5 directing the petitioner to appear before respondent No.5 on 24.06.2021 at 11.00 a.m. along with registered document bearing No.2049/2003 in original without fail. Accordingly, he appeared before the competent authority, but no purpose was served. 29. On that a notice dated 18.06.2021 in Rc.No.98/2020/SSRI was issued by respondent No.5 directing the petitioner to appear before respondent No.5 on 24.06.2021 at 11.00 a.m. along with registered document bearing No.2049/2003 in original without fail. Accordingly, he appeared before the competent authority, but no purpose was served. 29. After completion of entire acquisition process, the compensation is required to be paid to the petitioner by respondent No.5 in terms of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 and when the petitioners did not come forward to receive the compensation, the remedy open to respondent No.5 is to deposit the same before the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court in terms of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956. 30. Here, the contention of the respondents is that as the petitioners did not come forward to receive compensation for the land acquired under the award, despite intimation given to the petitioners, thereby, they were compelled to deposit the amount in the Court in terms of Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 31. Deposit of amount to the credit of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli under the impugned proceedings is not in dispute, but the very deposit of amount to the credit of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli is under challenge in the present petition mainly on the ground that the petitioners never refused to receive the compensation for the undisputed extent of land. However, they demanded payment of compensation for the difference of land i.e. Ac.0.02 ½ cents in different survey numbers as shown by the Tahsildar in the documents referred above. When the petitioners come forward to receive compensation for the undisputed land acquired, respondent No.4 is not supposed to deposit the same to the credit of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli invoking section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 32. A bare look at the proceedings, first public notice dated 29.04.2019 was published in Sakshi (Telugu) and the Hindu (English) on 02.05.2019 and second public notice dated 19.07.2019 was published in Sakshi (Telugu) and the Hindu (English) dated 24.07.2019 to surrender or deliver the possession of the land in question to the competent authority duly submitting the documents of land handing over receipt, affidavit, registered sale deeds in original etc., for making payment. 33. 33. As per the Para-4 of National Highways (manner of depositing the amount by the Central Government; making requisite funds available to the competent authority for acquisition of land) Rules, 2019, it is ordered that, “Where the amount deposited earlier by the executing agency into the account of the competent authority has remained undisbursed, or where the authorization limit for an account has been issued in favour of the competent authority for disbursement purposes but certain amount remain undisbursed, due to disputes which are referable to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for resolution in terms of sub-section (4) of section 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956, the competent authority shall, while forwarding such references to the Court, cause such undisbursed amounts to be deposited with the principal court of civil jurisdiction to whom any such disputes are referable, for payment to entitled persons as and when the said disputes are resolved, or the absentee title-holders submit their claims, as the case may be, such amount deposited with the principal court of civil jurisdiction shall, for all purposes, be deemed as payment made to entitled persons under sub-section (2) of section 3H of the National Highways Act." 34. As per Section 3-H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. 35. Thus, the respondents invoked jurisdiction under Section 3-H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and deposited the amount to the credit of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. In view of the proceedings, it is appropriate to examine whether there is any dispute to make deposit or to make any reference under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 36. In view of the proceedings, it is appropriate to examine whether there is any dispute to make deposit or to make any reference under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 36. Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 does not deal with deposit of compensation amount to the credit of the Court within the area where the property is acquired when there is a dispute with regard to the extent acquired, but it enables the authority to deposit the amount and make reference under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act when there is a dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation amount between two or more than two persons. 37. Here, there is absolutely no dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation payable to the petitioners so as to exercise power under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The voluminous correspondence between the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 is sufficient to conclude that the dispute is only with regard to actual extent available on ground and compensation awarded as per the award. Therefore, the dispute is purely regard actual extent acquired on ground, but not with regard to apportionment to invoke jurisdiction under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. As per the impugned proceedings, respondents deposited amount invoking Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 though there is no dispute regarding apportionment of compensation payable to the land owners except the extent acquired. Hence, invoking jurisdiction under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 in the absence of any dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation between the petitioner by respondent Nos.4 and 5, obviously for different reasons, to deprive the petitioners to utilize the compensation awarded to them for any other purpose, which directly amount to depriving the persons from enjoying the property and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 38. Respondent No.4 deposited the amount invoking Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which is similar to subsection 77 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act 30 of 2013”). Thus, neither Section 77 of the Act 30 of 2013 nor Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides payment of compensation awarded by the competent authority. Thus, neither Section 77 of the Act 30 of 2013 nor Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides payment of compensation awarded by the competent authority. The competent authority shall deposit the compensation amount in the bank account and in case the awardee is not ready to accept the same, the same shall be deposited with the authority. Instead of doing so, even though no dispute is existing regarding apportionment of amount between the petitioners and the respondents, the Joint Collector deposited the amount somehow to cause loss to the petitioners obviously for different reasons. Hence, deposit and reference under the impugned proceedings is contrary to the purport of Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Hence, the impugned proceedings Rc.No.27/2021/SSRI, dated .07.2021 are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside. 39. The petitioner also sought a direction, which is as follows: “the endorsement L.PR.No.181/2021/SA, dated 12.07.2021 issued by the 6th respondent as arbitrary, not bonafide, illegal and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners based on the endorsement L.PR.No.181/2021/SA, dated 09.04.2021 by adding the value of the structure and gravel as fixed by AEE (R & B) by modifying Award No.46 of 2018, dated 05.11.2018” 40. The endorsement L.PR.No.181/2021/SA, dated 12.07.2021 was issued by respondent No.6 and this Court cannot issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the said endorsement as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same since it is a disputed question of fact as there is dispute with regard to existence of land on ground and on paper. However, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are expected to act fairly in determining the compensation payable to the land owners and payment of the same to the awardees. Instead of acting fairly, respondents appears to have acted as if they are private individual to defeat the rights of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court though not competent to enquire into such disputed question of fact, I deem it appropriate to direct the Tahsildar, respondent No.6 to reexamine the issue by taking measurements on ground in the presence of petitioners and respondent No.5 or its subordinate officials, determine the actual extent acquired by respondent No.5 on ground with the help of Surveyor. 41. 41. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.27/2021/SSRI, dated .07.2021 of respondent No.4 as arbitrary, illegal, not bonafide and violative of right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently set aside the same while directing respondent No.4 to withdraw the amount from the account of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli and directly deposit the amount to the Savings Bank account of the petitioners for the respective extents of the land acquired with all consequential benefits. The petitioners are directed to furnish their bank account details to respondent No.4 within two (2) weeks from today by Registered Post so as to enable respondent No.4 to deposit the amount as directed above within one (1) month thereafter for the undisputed extent of land acquired. 42. Further, respondent No.6 - Tahsildar is directed to re-examine the issue by taking measurements on ground in the presence of petitioners and respondent No.5 or its subordinate officials, determine the actual extent acquired by respondent No.5 on ground with the help of Surveyor. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.