ORDER : 1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus in declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to pay the compensation to the structures of the petitioners acquired under Section 4 (1) Notification dated 01.10.2005 situated in Kaluvayandalapalli, H/o Varikunta village, Atlur Mandal, Kadapa District vide endorsement dated 16.07.2014 and 22.04.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and consequently to pay the compensation to the acquired structures of the petitioners under Section 4 (1) Notification dated 01.10.2005 as per the current Standard Schedule Rules (SSR) prevailed as on the date of 4 (1) Notification.” 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioners 1 to 40 and 42 to 86 are the residents of Kaluvoivandlapalli village, Hamlet of Varikunta village and post. The 2nd respondent-the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), had issued 4(1) Notification vide proceedings GNSS/D/335/05, dated 29.09.2005, which was published in District Gazette No.39, dated 01.10.2005, for acquisition of the petitioners structures (residential Houses, Cattle sheds and agriculture godowns) for the purpose of construction of Somasila project. The petitioners earlier filed W.P.No.24288 of 2005 challenging 4(1) notification dated 01.10.2005, on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3 have failed to notify their structures in 4 (1) notification. The said writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to note down the physical features of the permanent structures. Pursuant to the order passed by this court, the District Empowered Committee has been constituted by the 1st respondent headed by the District Collector to examine the matter and thereafter, the District Empowered Committee had instructed the respondents 2 and 3 to obtain fresh requisition from Engineering Department and decided to complete the inspection by the special teams and also directed the 3rd respondent to prepare draft notification and draft declaration proposals were approved and published. The District Empowered Committee had enumerated all the existing structures and submitted enumeration list to the District Empowered Committee. Pursuant to the enumerated list, the structures of the petitioners were categorised under five Heads. 3. The District Empowered Committee had enumerated all the existing structures and submitted enumeration list to the District Empowered Committee. Pursuant to the enumerated list, the structures of the petitioners were categorised under five Heads. 3. Pursuant to the said categorization, the Engineering Department had sent estimation report to the respondents 2 and 3 by estimating the structure value prevailing in the year 2002-2003. The 3rd respondent had addressed a letter through his proceedings Ref.No.C/241/2005, dated 07.06.2006 to the Executive Engineer Somasila Project Division IV informing that several defects were found in the estimation report and requested him to verify the estimation report and re-submit the same for taking further action by showing the defects in the estimation report in respect of adopting the value of their structures as the structure values were shown in the estimation report on the Standard Schedule Rates prevailing in the year 2002-2003 instead of estimating the structure values at the Standard Schedule Rates prevailed as on the date of issuance of 4 (1) Notification i.e. 01.10.2005. The 3rd respondent, having addressed a letter dated 07.06.2006 and without obtaining a fresh estimation report from the Engineering Department, had erroneously passed consent award vide Award No.3/2006-2007, dated 31.07.2007 by determining the compensation with the Standard Schedule Rates prevailed in the year 2002-2003 though the petitioners are entitled compensation at the Standard Schedule Rates prevailing as on the date of issuance of 4(1) Notification dated 01.10.2005. 4. Further, the petitioners made a representation on 16.11.2006 to the 3rd respondent explaining the mistakes committed in the Award in fixing the compensation in respect of their structures as per the Standard Schedule Rates prevailing in the year 2002-2003 and requested him to pay compensation as per the Standard Schedule Rates (SSR) prevailing as on the date of issuance of 4 (1) Notification dated 29.09.2005 and requested to pay the differential compensation amount for three years as the 3rd respondent himself found defects in respect of adopting the value of their structures through his letter dated 07.06.2006. Pursuant to the representations, the 2nd respondent issued endorsement dated 25.07.2014 informing that the 3rd respondent would take necessary steps on the representations dated 23.06.2014. Pursuant to the representations, the 2nd respondent issued endorsement dated 25.07.2014 informing that the 3rd respondent would take necessary steps on the representations dated 23.06.2014. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued endorsement dated 16.07.2014 informing the petitioners that the compensation was fixed as per the Standard Schedule Rates (SSR) of 2002-2003 as directed by the Government and consent award was passed and as such, it cannot be referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, though the compensation has to be paid as per the current Standard Schedule Rates (SSR) as the Government itself reported that the valuation of structures to be arrived as per current Standard Schedule Rates (SSR) in W.P.No.14241 of 2002 and batch dated 27.08.2003. The petitioners made a representation again on 03.02.2015 to the 3rd respondent requesting to pay differential amount of compensation for three years from 2003-2004 to 2005-2006 as per the Standard Schedule Rates (SSR) prevailed in the year 2002-2003. But, the 3rd respondent, ignoring his letter dated 07.06.2006, issued an endorsement dated 23.04.2015 stating that the compensation was paid as per the estimation prepared by the District Empowered Committee, which is contrary to his own proceedings dated 07.06.2006 as well as the guidelines framed by the Government. Challenging the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The 3rd respondent filed their counter contending, inter alia, that the District Collector and Chairman of District Empowered Committee has advised 25% depreciation may be adopted to the additions in Col.No.7C (difference) in Statement-III, which may be allowed depreciation equal to other benefits as proposed by the Special Officer in Statement-III structures. The District Collector and Chairman, District Empowered Committee has accorded permission to notify the left over genuine structures and ordered to pass consent award by offering 16%, 25% increase over the estimated value arrived at the Engineering Department for structures following 2002-2003 year SSR rates as recommended in the District Negotiate Committee meeting held on 20.07.2003 in terms of G.O.Rt.No.802, dated 30.10.2003. The District Empowered Committee, after holding a meeting, accorded permission and ordered to pass consent award by offering 16% and 25% increase over the estimated value arrived at by the Engineering Department for structures by following 2002-2003 year SSR rates. The District Empowered Committee, after holding a meeting, accorded permission and ordered to pass consent award by offering 16% and 25% increase over the estimated value arrived at by the Engineering Department for structures by following 2002-2003 year SSR rates. The 3rd respondent further stated that in the enumeration list submitted to the District Empowered Committee, there are no missing measurements of the structures and if there are missing measurements of structures, the petitioners ought to have brought to the notice of the District Empowered Committee and after lapse of 10 years, the petitioners filed the writ petition seeking payment of SSR rates of 2005-2006 for missing measurements of structures, but, such payment of compensation does not arise as the SSR rates of 2002-2003 was recommended in the District Negotiation Committee in terms of G.O.Rt.No.802, Irrigation and CAD (Projects TGP-II) Department, dated 30.10.2003. The petitioners are not entitled for SSR rates 2005-2006 as the consent award for the structures was passed vide Award No.3/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 adopting the SSR rates of 2002-2003 in terms of G.O.Rt.No.802, dated 30.10.2003. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit reiterating the contents as stated in the writ affidavit and submitted that this court in W.P.No.14246 of 2002 and batch dated 27.08.2003 clearly recorded instructions issued by the 1st respondent that the acquisition of land and structures in the balance villages shall be expedited through passing concerned award and structures which need to be compensated and missed in the current DN should be covered through a supplementary notification and the valuation of structures as per the current SSR should be arrived at and it is also instructed that the entire remaining land acquisition steps should be completed within next three months period and further held that supplementary notification as ordered by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.484, dated 26.06.2003 shall be issued thereafter, if any of the petitioners or other persons whose lands and structures are proposed to be acquired are not willing to accept consent awards and accordingly, all necessary steps shall be taken. The petitioners further stated in their reply affidavit that the respondents having failed to complete the exercise within three months as directed by this Court and subsequently on 29.09.2005, issued 4(1) notification on 29.09.2005 for acquisition of their structures while assessed the value of the structures as per the rates as on 2002-2003 instead of current SSR prevailing as on the date of notification i.e. on 29.09.2005. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also filed additional reply affidavit enclosing copies of representations dated 16.11.2006 and the order in W.P.No.27325 of 2018 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another v. Singappa Dyavappa Biradar and others, (2005) 4 SCC 264 . 8. The point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as per the Standard Schedule Rate (SSR) prevailing as on 2002-2003 or as on the date of issuance of 4(1) notification i.e. on 01.10.2005? The petitioners filed a copy of the G.O.Ms.No.484 Irrigation and CAD (Projects Wing/IGP-II/A-2) Department dated 26.06.2003, according to which, the Government, after taking into consideration of the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, ordered the following instructions, to the District Collector, Cuddapah/Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore/Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, Srikalahasti. The said instructions read as under: 1) Acquisition of land and structures in the balance villages shall be expedited through passing consent awards; 2) Structures which need to be compensated and missed in the current D.N. should be covered through a supplementary notification; 3) Valuation of these structures as per current SGP should be arrived at; 4) The District Collector, Cuddapah is permitted to negotiate with the village Community and arrive at suitable enhancement up to maximum of 50% to facilitate consent award; 5) The entire negotiations exercise is to be conducted in a transparent way to the knowledge of everyone concerned; 6) Should there be any structures that have come up due to efflux of time and with an objective of improving the stands of living, they need not be precluded from the current notification, unless and otherwise the District Empowered Committee has strong reasons to exclude them. No structure that to non-existing shall be paid for; 7) While fixing the basic rate and while negotiating the enhancement consent award the District Empowered Committee may different values/levels of enhancement taking into consideration of nature and the circumstances relating to the structure in question; 8) The District Collector, Cuddapah and the Special Collector, TGP…. are directed to ensure photography of all the structures using digital camera from various dimensions; 9) The entire remaining land acquisition steps should be completed within next three months period; 10) Payment of compensation to the awardees shall be done in transparent manner by delivering the cheques in the Gramasabha.” 9. On perusal of the instructions of the said G.O., instruction No.9 would show that for the entire remaining land acquisition, steps should be completed within next three months period. But, admittedly, in the present case, no such steps were initiated thereafter. However, the respondents, having issued 4(1) notification in the year 2005, determined the compensation as per the SSR prevailing in the year 2002-2003. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment in K. Peda Venkataiah and others v. Government of A.P. and others, 2004 (3) ALT 78 (DB) wherein it is held as under: “…….The enquiry into the value of the land is with reference to the date of publication of notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) of the Act. It is a statutory requirement. The Land Acquisition Officer is under obligation to make an enquiry into the value of the land as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. No other course is permissible in law. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents that the market value of the land in question has been determined with reference to the date of taking possession of the land is totally untenable and unsustainable. The decision is clearly ultra vires and void. ….. ……The crucial date for assessing the market value of the land is the date of publication of notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) of the Act. This mandatory requirement has been given a total go-by while actually awarding compensation to the appellants……. ……For the aforesaid reasons, the award dated 24.122.2002 is quashed. ….. ……The crucial date for assessing the market value of the land is the date of publication of notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) of the Act. This mandatory requirement has been given a total go-by while actually awarding compensation to the appellants……. ……For the aforesaid reasons, the award dated 24.122.2002 is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal to pass an award and pay compensation by making an enquiry into the value of the land at the date of publication of notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) of the Act. The process in this regard shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 10. Similarly, in R.P. Singh v. Union of India and others, (2005) 7 SCC 24 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered by the court while determining the compensation. It provides that the claimant would be entitled to the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. He would also be entitled to damage, if any, suffered by him because of the acquisition of the land.” 11. Admittedly, the petitioners lands/structures were acquired in pursuance of 4(1) notification dated 29.09.2005, but, the respondents assessed the market value of the structures as per the SSR rates prevailing in the year 2002-2003, instead of assessing the market value of the structures as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act i.e. 29.09.2005. 12. Further, a perusal of Section 23 of the Act also makes it clear that the claimant would be entitled to the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. 13. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances stated above and in view of the law laid down in the judgments referred to supra, this court is of the considered opinion that the determination of market value of the structures of the petitioners as per SSR prevailing in the year 2002-2003, though the notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in the year 2005 i.e. on 29.09.2005, cannot be sustained and the same is contrary to settled principles. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation for the structures as per the Standard Schedule Rate (SSR) prevailing as on the date of issuance of 4(1) notification i.e. on 29.09.2005. Hence, the endorsement dated 16.07.2014 and 22.05.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent are liable to be set aside. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the endorsement dated 16.07.2014 and 22.04.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent and the respondents are directed to determine the market value of the structures of the petitioners as per the SSR prevailing as on the date of 4 (1) notification i.e. 29.09.2005 and pay the differential amounts to the petitioners within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.