ORDER : 1. W.P.No.27325 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief : “To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in passing Award No.1/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 on the basis of 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R.) and paying the compensation even though 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 01.10.2005 is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation basing on the current Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R.) prevailing on the date of 4(1) Notification dated 01.10.2005 as per the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act.” 2. W.P.No.11881 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief : “To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in passing Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 on the basis of 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) and paying the compensation even though 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 01.10.2005 is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation basing on the current Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) prevailing on the date of 4(1) Notification dated 01.10.2005 as per the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act.” 3. Since the facts and issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, I find it expedient to decide both the matters by common order. 4. For the sake of convenience, W.P.No.11881 of 2018 is taken as leading case. The petitioners in W.P.No.11881 of 2018 were the owners of different extents of land and structures thereon in Reach No.II, Korivivandlapalli Village, Hamlet of Varikunta, Atloor Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, which was submerged under the backwaters of Somasila Project along with other structures and land in the said village. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in District Gazette No.33 dated 01.10.2005. After following due procedure under Land Acquisition Act Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 was passed by the third respondent. Estimates were arrived by the Engineering Department for the structures following the Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) Rates of the year 2002-03. Award was passed as per the said 2002-03 year S.S.R Rates and compensation was paid to the petitioners. 5. After following due procedure under Land Acquisition Act Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 was passed by the third respondent. Estimates were arrived by the Engineering Department for the structures following the Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) Rates of the year 2002-03. Award was passed as per the said 2002-03 year S.S.R Rates and compensation was paid to the petitioners. 5. Since the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the District Gazette No.33 dated 01.10.2005, the S.S.R Rates prevailing in the year 2005-06 has to be adopted for the preparation of estimates and pass award for payment of compensation. No such procedure was followed in passing the Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 and payment of compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled for the compensation at the Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) prevailing on the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act dated 01.10.2005. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Rt.No.484 Irrigation & C.A.D (Projects Wing/T.G.P.II/A.2) Department dated 26.06.2003 clearly stated that the valuation of the structures should be done as per current S.S.R Rates. According to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation has to be paid on the basis of the current Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) on the date of Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act Notification dated 01.10.2005. Despite the representation dated 19.03.2018 submitted by the petitioners to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 stating all the facts and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not consider the same. The action of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in passing Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 on the basis of 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) and paying the compensation even though Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 01.10.2005 and such action is illegal, arbitrary and therefore, the petitioners in both the writ petitions approached this Court claiming the relief stated above. 6. Respondent No.3 – Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-II, Kadapa, filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, while admitting passing of Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006, determination of compensation based on S.S.R Rates of 2002-03, but enhancing the same @ 25% though notification was in the year 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R). 6. Respondent No.3 – Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-II, Kadapa, filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, while admitting passing of Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006, determination of compensation based on S.S.R Rates of 2002-03, but enhancing the same @ 25% though notification was in the year 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R). The specific contentions of Respondent No.3 are as follows : (a) The present writ petition is filed after more than 10 years from the date of passing of Award dated 31.07.2006 for enhancement of Compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief on the ground of delay and latches, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition is liable to be dismissed. (b) While admitting about issue of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, it is specifically contended that the Awards were passed after negotiations with the land loosers and interested persons, consent awards were passed. (c) The Government in G.O.Rt.No.553 I&CAD (TGP-II) Department dated 02.08.2002 constituted an Empowered Committee with District Collector, Kadapa as the Chairman and the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa is the member convenor and the Superintending Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, Circle, Kadapa as member to resolve all the issues relating to the acquisition of lands and structures relating to Somasila Project. (d) The Government vide G.O.Rt.No.393 I&CAD (TGP-II) dated 16.05.2003 have constituted a cabinet sub-committee consisting of Minister for Finance, Minister for Revenue and Minister for Major and Medium Irrigation to suggest the measures to resolve the issues relating to pending Land Acquisition and payment of compensation through consent awards. (e) The cabinet sub-committee vide G.O.Rt.No.484 I & CAD (TGP-II) dated 26.06.2003 has recommended the District Collector and the Empowered Committee Members to complete the balance of Land Acquisition work in a transparent way to the knowledge of everyone concerned and permitted the District Collector, Kadapa to negotiate with the village committee and to arrive at a reasonable enhancement, passing consent awards. The cabinet sub-committee recommended the structures which need to be compensated and missed in the current DN should be covered through a supplementary notification and the structures that have come up due to efflux of time and with an objective of improving the standards of living there need not be precluded from the current notification, unless and otherwise, the District Empowered Committee has strong reasons to exclude them. (f) The District Collector & Chairman Empowered Committee, Kadapa vide Rc.No.GS/3606/02, dated: 14.07.2003 constituted Teams comprising The Executive Director, District Schedule Caste Service Coop Society Limited, Kadapa, Mandal Revenue Officer, Proddatur and Assistant Executive Engineer, GNSS Sub Division-I, Tirupathi. (g) The team has enumerated all the existing structures and submitted Enumeration list to the District Empowered Committee. The Government Vide G.O.Rt.No.802 I & CAD (PW.TGP-11) Dept., dated 30.10.2003, have issued orders appointing the Joint Collector, Ananthapur District as Special Officer. He has enumerated and enquired all the structures of Korivivandlapalli H/o Varikunta and categorized the structures and submitted the categorization proposals to the District Empowered Committee on 20.03.2006. The same has been approved by the District Empowered Committee. The Special Officer have categorized, the structures in to I to V as under. 1. Statement-l: (60) Structures already notified in D.N. and genuine 2. Statement-11: (23) Genuine to the extent of the actual area mentioned at 7b. 3. Statement-111: (45) The structures may be treated as genuine to the extent of notified area (Col.7a (DN & DD). Additionals has mentioned as Col.7C (difference) may be allowed depreciation equivalent to other benefits. 4. Statement-IV: The structures may be allowed compensation with 25% depreciation. 5. Statement-V: (27+3) All structures are genuine. The structures are not notified in DN & DD. 6. Statement V (5): All structures are genuine may be allowed. Compensation at 25% depreciation. The structures are notified in the DN&DD. The Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa directed to prepare Addendum and Amendment for the Statement II to VI as approved by the District Empowered Committee and sent to publication. The same was approved by the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa and got published. No objections were received. Compensation at 25% depreciation. The structures are notified in the DN&DD. The Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa directed to prepare Addendum and Amendment for the Statement II to VI as approved by the District Empowered Committee and sent to publication. The same was approved by the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa and got published. No objections were received. (h) The District Collector, Kadapa & Chairman District Empowered Committee have accorded permission from the Government to notify the left over Genuine structures and ordered to pass the consent award by offering 16%, 25% increase over the estimated value arrived at the Engineering Department for structures adopting the 2002-03-year SSR rates. The model estimates for the structures were given by the Engineering Department on the basis of plinth area and nature of structures as per the SSR rates of 2002-03. The District Empowered Committee has approved the modal estimates given by the Engineering Department. The Preliminary Variation Statement has been prepared on the basis of the Statements, proposals of the Special Officer (Joint Collector), Ananthapur and model estimates prepared by the Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, Division-l, Somasila and submitted to the District Empowered Committee for approval. Those proposals were scrutinized by the Special Collector(LA), GNSS, Kadapa and the same was approved by the District Empowered Committee. The Award enquiry under Section 11 of the L.A. Act was conducted in Korivivandlapalli H/O Varikunta Village duly informing to the land losers and interested persons. No objections were received at the time of award enquiry. (i) No objections were received against valuation statements prepared by the Engineering Department on the on the basis of plinth area recommended by the Special Officer and type of structures. The Engineering Department who are technical authority have inspected the structures covered by this award and formed the valuation (Model Estimates) of the structures. The Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa has inspected the structures along with Special Deputy Collector, TGP. Until Kadapa with reference to the valuation, estimates furnished by the Engineering Department. The Preliminary Valuation prepared and 25% depreciation in statement III to V as advised by the District Empowered Committee to "additions as mentioned in Col.7 (C) may be allowed depreciation equal to other benefits” has given by the Special Officer. The Preliminary Valuation statement has been scrutinized by the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa and the same was approved by the District Empowered Committee. The Preliminary Valuation statement has been scrutinized by the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa and the same was approved by the District Empowered Committee. The Petitioners also appeared before the LAO for award enquiry. They have accepted for the measurements fixed to the above structures and valuation furnished by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Somasila Project Division-IV, Atmakur Mandal of Nellore District. No rival claims or objections were filed. After negotiations the awardees entered into an agreement duly engrossed on Rs.10/- stamp paper in Form IV signed declaring that he/she will not claim for payment of higher compensation U/s 18 and U/s 28-A of L.A. Act in any court of law or in any other Forum and shall abide by Consent Award made by the Land Acquisition Officer U/s 11(2) read with section 31(2) of L.A. Act. They agreed for the structures which are included in statement I to VI and to receive compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. As such Consent Award was passed, consequently the petitioners are not entitled to any relief once Consent Award was passed. It is submitted that the District Collector & Chairman has accorded permission to notify the left over Genuine structures and ordered to pass the consent award by offering 16%, 25% increase over the estimated value arrived at the Engineering Department for structures following the 2002-03 year SSR Rates as recommended in the District Negotiation Committee Meetings Held on 20.03.2003 in terms of G.O.Rt.No.802, dated 30.10.2003. The Model Estimates for the structures were given. The Petitioners now requested for modification of compensation for structure estimated by the Engineering Department on the basis of plinth area and nature of structures as per the SSR rates 2002-03 as recommended in the District Negotiation Committee Meeting held on 20.07.2003 in terms of G.O.Rt.No.802, dated 30.10.2003 Irrigation and CAD (Projects Wing TGP-11) Department. (j) It is submitted that this village is village is one among the list of 23 villages for which District Empowered Committee was appointed under Chairman Ship of District Collector, Kadapa in G.O.Ms.No.802, I & CAD (PW.T.G.P.-II) Department dated 30.10.2003, it is very clear that the SSR rates to be adopted shall be 2002-03. Hence, request for considering current SSR does not arise. Hence, request for considering current SSR does not arise. Finally the District Empowered Committee after holding a meeting accorded permission and ordered to pass Consent Award by offering 16%, 25% increase over the estimated value arrived by the Engineering Department for structures by following 2002-03 year SSR rates. It is submitted that the Government authorized the District Empowered Committee to take a decision in the matters and accordingly the District Empowered Committee offered package with enhancement of 25%, over and above the Market value of the structures with SSR rates 2002-03. The LAO informed the same to the villagers by holding Gramasabha and after executing consent affidavit in Form-IV, award has been passed and the amount of compensation was already disbursed. The petitioners received compensation under Consent Award passed under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 31(2). (k) It is submitted that, it is incorrect that the claimant protested at the time of receiving the amount and that the LAO rightly rejected the claims to pay the differential amount of compensation SSR rates 2005-06 as Consent Award was already passed Under Section 11 (2) read with 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the SSR rates of 2005-06. The SSR rates of 2002-03 was adopted as per Go.Rt.No.802, dt.30.10.2003 since the consent Award was passed in Award No.3/2006-07 dt. 31.07.2006 for payment of compensation for the structures in Korivivandlapalli H/O Varikunta (V), Atloor (M) as recommended by the District Empowered Committee, ally obtaining consent of the Awardees by obtaining consent Affidavits in Form-IV. 7. The steps and procedure as instructed by the Government Vide Memo No.139159/TGP-11/2003, dated 24.11.2003 and some of the instructions are MGP-11/2003, dt. 24.11.2005 are as follows : (3.4) After completing verification and over check the Special Officers should ensure that the concerned Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Publishes the list of such structures proposed to be notified as addendum/ supplementary notification in the village and may wait for a period of one week to enable the petitioners to verify the particulars of structures, after announcing by way of tom-tom in the villages inviting objections. (3.5) The Special Officers shall ensure that the valuation of these structures is as per current S.S.R. rates i.e., 2002-03, duly prepared by the Officials of Engineering Department concerned and they should also ensure that the Preliminary Valuation Statement (PV) is correctly prepared by the Land Acquisition Officers concerned and submitted to the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project for approval. Afterwards, the Land Acquisition Officers should also conduct award enquiry under Section 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (3.6) Thereafter, the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore shall arrange to submit necessary proposals to the District Collector, Kadapa for placing the matter before the District Negotiations Committee for further action strictly as per the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (District Level Negotiations Committee) Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1050. Revenue (LA) Department, dated 17-10-1992 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.594, Revenue (L.A), Department dated 10.08.1998 and as per the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (3.7) The District Collector, is permitted to negotiate with the owners of the structures/lands and arrive at suitable enhancement up to a maximum of 25% to facilitate passing of consent award. (3.8) The entire negotiations exercises is to be conducted in a transparent way to the knowledge of everyone concerned. (3.9) While fixing me basic rate and while negotiating the enhancement for consent ward the District Negotiations Committee may offer different values/levels of enhancement taking into consideration the nature and circumstances relating to the structure in question. (3.10) The Special Officers shall ensure that the awardees lists together with the particulars of structures and the compensation payable and publicized in the Gram Sabhas. (3.11) The cheques shall be issued to the awardees concerned in the Gram Sabhas only. (3.12) The Special Officers concerned shall be present in all the Gram Sabhas and supervise the entire process. (3.13) The amount awarded by the Negotiations Committee with the consent the awardees shall be paid within a period of four weeks after passing award. (3.14) If any of the petitioners or other persons, whose lands and structure proposed to be acquired, are not willing to accept consent award necessary steps under the Land Acquisition Act shall be taken. Hence there is no chance to either missing of structures or variations in the plinth area of the structures. 8. (3.14) If any of the petitioners or other persons, whose lands and structure proposed to be acquired, are not willing to accept consent award necessary steps under the Land Acquisition Act shall be taken. Hence there is no chance to either missing of structures or variations in the plinth area of the structures. 8. It is specifically contended that the SSR Rates are adopted as per the instructions of the Government vide Memo No.139159/TGP-11/2003, dt.24.11.2003, and with knowledge and consent of the village committee and awards were passed duly obtaining their consent taking on Form-IV on the Non Judicial Bond worth Rs.10/- and cheques were also distributed in the village Grama Sabhas. 9. It is further contended that, there is all over transparency in passing of award strictly in terms of Land Acquisition Act with the consent of the awardees of Korivivandlapalli with the SSR Rates 2002-2003, No objections were raised on this issue during this 11 years 8 months as these are consent awards. Now these petitions are filing with malicious intention and misleading the Court and finally requested to dismiss the writ petitions. 10. During hearing, Sri Ch. C. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in both the writ petitions, has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.37300 of 2012 dated 08.002.2017, where, the learned single Judge directed the respondents to pay compensation based on SSR rates of 2005-2006 and to pay differential amount of ex-gratia at SSR Rates prevailing in the year 2005-06 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of possession taken over in the year 2006, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 11. It is also contended that, when a Coordinate Bench has taken a decision on the similar issue relating to same Award, the other Coordinate Bench is bound to follow the judgment and therefore, a direction is sought in terms of the order in both the writ petitions. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that, delay is not a ground in Land Acquisition matters and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. M.I.D.C., 2013 (2) ALD 7 (SC). 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that, delay is not a ground in Land Acquisition matters and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. M.I.D.C., 2013 (2) ALD 7 (SC). On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, he requested to issue similar direction as issued in W.P.No.37300 of 2012 dated 08.002.2017. 13. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition raised a specific contention that, when the Awards are passed obtaining consent i.e. consent Awards, the petitioners are not entitled to claim enhancement of compensation while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar, 2005 Law Suit (SC) 570. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that, since the Awards are consent Awards, the petitioners are not entitled to maintain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and make a request to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 14. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows : “Whether Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 passed by the third respondent are Consent Awards? If so, whether the petitioners are entitled to question the adequacy of compensation on any of the grounds and whether a direction as claimed by the petitioners be issued by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” POINT : 15. The petitioners did not dispute Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 passed by the third respondent. The petitioners questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded for the structures based on Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) 2002-03, though the notification was issued and published on 01.10.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The third respondent did not deny passing of Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006, date of issue of Notification i.e. 01.10.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act; but contended that the Award is consent Award and value of the structures is fixed on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) 2002-03 with enhancement of 25% over the Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) of 2002-03 as agreed by the petito0ners and other land losers. At the same time, Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 are consent awards. If so, what are the rights of the claimants/petitioners herein to claim enhancement of compensation to the structures based on Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) of 2005-06, is to be examined. 16. In view of the specific contention raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, it is necessary to advert to the contents of Awards to find out whether the Awards are Consent Awards or not. 17. A bare look at the content of Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006, while awarding compensation to each of the owner of both land or land loser and structures, a specific mention is made about Consent Award and it is extracted hereunder : “The valuation given by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Somasila Project, Division-IV, Atmakur, Nellore District have been adopted for the structures. It is consent award. The awardee entered into an agreement duly signed in Rs.10/- stamp paper in Form IV declaring that he/she will not claim for payment of higher compensation u/s 18 and u/s 28(2) of L.A. Act in any court to flaw or in any other forum and shall abide by Consent Award made by the Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11(2) read with Section 31*(2) of L.A. Act. Apart from the package deal he/she agreed to abide any other terms and conditions as per agreement deal entered with. He/she agreed for the structures which are put in under statement I to VI and to receive compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 18. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the provision which enables the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an Award. According to Section 11(2), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. Thus, Sub-section (2) of Section 11 permits passing of Consent Award based on the agreement. Here, the land owners allegedly executed agreement on Rs.10/- stamp paper in Form IV. Copies of affidavits are filed along with counter affidavit. Thus, Sub-section (2) of Section 11 permits passing of Consent Award based on the agreement. Here, the land owners allegedly executed agreement on Rs.10/- stamp paper in Form IV. Copies of affidavits are filed along with counter affidavit. Therefore, Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 are only “Consent Awards”. One of the contentions raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition is that, the compensation was awarded for structures based on Standard Schedule Rates of 2002-03 + 25% enhancement over the Standard Schedule Rates of 2002-03 in terms of the agreement of Award. Form-IV is placed on record in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent to establish that it is a consent award. The agreement in Form-IV at Page No.61 is extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the case and it is as follows : FORM-IV Affidavit to be executed by the interested persons before the Land Acquisition Officer under Rs.10 Non-Judicial Stamp Paper I, Sri Singara Subga Reddy, s/o Pedda Obul Reddy owner/owners of the land/structure in S.No.405/2/SPR No.1,13,14,24 in Reach No.II of Korivivandlapalli Village, ATloor Mandla, Kadapa District, hereby agree for the acquisition of my/our land/structure by the Collector (Land Acquisition)/Spl. Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition)/Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) for the purpose of foreshore submersion under Somasila Project. I/We solemnly affirm that I/We/am/are the absolute owner/owners of the land/structure mentioned above and the land/structure is not encumbered. The compensation payable for this land/structure may be paid to me/may be paid to. I/We am/are agreeable to the payment of compensation at the rate of …… per acre/per sq.metre which was offered by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer/Negotiation Committee. I/We am/are also agreeable for payment of compensation for the trees, the structures in the land proposed for acquisition which are valued at Rs….. by the Land Acquisiton Officer/by the Negotiation committee in consultation with the Technical Officers. I/We, am/are agreeable to accept Rs.8,76,344/- being the total compensation payable towards my/our share as per the package deal arrived at through settlement by Negotiation Committee. I, we hereby declare that I/We will not claim for payment of higher compensation in any Court of law or in any other forum and shall abide by the Consent award made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11(2) read with Second Proviso under Section 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act. I, we hereby declare that I/We will not claim for payment of higher compensation in any Court of law or in any other forum and shall abide by the Consent award made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11(2) read with Second Proviso under Section 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act. Apart from the package deal I/We agree to abide by other terms and conditions as per the agreement deed entered into by me/us with Land Acquisition Officer in the present of the Negotiation Committee. 19. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioners in the Consent Awards that they will not claim for payment of higher compensation in any Court of law or in any other Forum and shall abide by the consent award made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11(2) read with second proviso under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners/land holders are disentitled to claim compensation at enhanced rate based on Standard Schedule Rates 2005-06 for the structures. Accordingly, I hold that, Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 are Consent Awards. 20. When the Awards are consent awards, the rights of the parties are determined by the terms of awards and agreement itself. As per the terms of Awards, the petitioners agreed not to claim enhancement of compensation before any court of law or any other Forum and shall abide by the consent Award, thereby, the Awards are Consent Awards, in view of execution of Agreement in Form-IV. 21. Learned counsel for the petiitoners Sri Ch. C. Krishna Reddy would submit that a similar issue came up before High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.NO.37300 of 2012. In the facts of the above judgment, the structures of the petitioners therein were acquired by the respondents due to submergence under Somasila Project by paying ex-gratia based on SSR rates of 2001 instead of SSR rates payable for 2005-2006. 22. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in the above writ petition filed W.P.No.120 of 2007 seeking directions to the respondents to pay the differential amount of ex-gratia as per SSR rates of 2005-2006 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 27.8.2009 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners. The 2nd respondent after taking considerable time passed orders on 14.2.2012 by issuing LOC for differential amount of ex-gratia as per SSR rates of 2005-06. The 2nd respondent after taking considerable time passed orders on 14.2.2012 by issuing LOC for differential amount of ex-gratia as per SSR rates of 2005-06. When the cheques were not issued to the petitioners within the time fixed by the Accounts Officer, the petitioners filed W.P.No.6085 of 2012. The Court passed interim orders to issue cheques on or before 31.3.2012. When the said interim order was not implemented, the petitioners filed contempt case. The Court disposed of both the cases viz., writ petition and contempt case directing the respondents herein to pass fresh orders as to the right of the petitioners ex gratia to be paid out on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates, that prevail on the date on which the possession premises is taken over. W.P.No.37300 of 2012 was disposed of on 08.002.2017, directing the respondents to pay compensation based on SSR rates of 2005-2006 and to pay differential amount of ex-gratia at SSR Rates prevailing in the year 2005-06 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of possession taken over in the year 2006, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 23. No doubt, the learned single Judge held in favour of the petitioner therein. But, the question as to maintainability of claim for payment of compensation at enhanced rate or maintainability of the writ petition was not raised in the said writ petition and the order was passed without touching the right of the claimant to claim enhanced rate of compensation on any ground. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment to limited extent is binding. But, so far as the right of the claimant to claim compensation based on Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) of 2005-06 is to be decided by this Court, in view of the specific contention urged before this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 24. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, contends that the claimants have no right to claim compensation at enhanced rates by applying Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R.) 2005-06 on two grounds : (a) The first ground is that, the Award for structures is passed on purely Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) 2002-03. 24. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, contends that the claimants have no right to claim compensation at enhanced rates by applying Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R.) 2005-06 on two grounds : (a) The first ground is that, the Award for structures is passed on purely Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) 2002-03. (b) The second ground is that, when Consent Awards are passed, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief based on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra) 25. In State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra), the Apex Court relied on the judgments of State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai, (1995) 5 SCC 746 and Ishwarlal Premchand Shah v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 174 . 26. In State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai (referred supra), the Court held that, the right and entitlement to seek reference would, therefore, arise when amount of compensation was received under protest in writing which would manifest the intention of the owner of non-acceptance of the award. Section 11(2) opens with a non-obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)" and provides that "if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. By virtue of sub-section (4), "notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act". The award made under Section 11(2) in terms of the agreement is, therefore, an award with consent obviating the necessity of reference under Section 18. 27. In Ishwarlal Premchand Shah v. State of Gujarat (referred supra), the Court reiterated the same principle and held as follows : “It is true that on determination of compensation under sub-section (1) for the land acquired, Section 23(2) enjoins to award, in addition to the market value, 30% solatium in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. 27. In Ishwarlal Premchand Shah v. State of Gujarat (referred supra), the Court reiterated the same principle and held as follows : “It is true that on determination of compensation under sub-section (1) for the land acquired, Section 23(2) enjoins to award, in addition to the market value, 30% solatium in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. Equally, Parliament having taken notice of the inordinate delay in making the award by the Land Acquisition Officer from the date of notification published under Section 4(1) till passing the award under Section 11, to offset the price pegged during the interregnum, Section 23(1-A) was introduced to award an amount calculated @ 12% per annum on such market value, in addition to the market value of the land, for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of Section 4(1) notification to the date of award of the Collector or date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. Under Section 28, interest was directed to be paid on the excess compensation at the rate specified therein from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of deposit into court of such excess compensation. These three components are in addition to the compensation determined under sub-section (1) of Section 23. They intended to operate in different perspectives. One for compulsory acquisition, the other for the delay on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in making the award and the third one for deprivation of the enjoyment of the land from the date of taking possession till determination of the compensation. The three components are in addition to the determination of market value under sub-section (1) of Section 23. They are not integral to determination of compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 23 but in addition to, for the circumstances enumerated hereinbefore. In a private sale between a willing vendor and a willing vendee, parties would arrive at consensus to pay and receive consolidated consideration which would form the market value of the land conveyed to the vendee. For public purpose, compulsory acquisition under the Act gives absolute title under Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Determination of the compensation would be done under Section 23(1) on the basis of market value prevailing as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). For public purpose, compulsory acquisition under the Act gives absolute title under Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Determination of the compensation would be done under Section 23(1) on the basis of market value prevailing as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). It would, therefore, be open to the parties to enter into a contract under Section 11(2), without the necessity to determine compensation under Section 23(1) and would receive market value at the rates incorporated in the contract signed under Section 11(2) in which event the award need not be in Form 14” 28. In the facts of the judgment in Assam Railways & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. The Collector of Lakhimpur and Another, (1976) 3 SCC 24 , placed reliance is not applicable to the fact of the present case. Therein negotiations had taken place between the parties whereupon the Railway Administration prepared to pay Rs.2500/- per bigha towards the sale price of the land but the transaction was not completed, having regard to the fact that under the State Railway Rules, land from private parties could be acquired only by taking recourse to acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, in the land acquisition proceedings, an award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector allowing compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per bigha. It is in that situation, the negotiation between the parties was highlighted stating that although the same did not fructify into a binding contract, there was at least a "gentleman's agreement" regarding the price which indicated what a willing purchaser was ready to pay for the land. In the factual backdrop of that case the Apex Court observed as follows : “Assuming this was an agreement which bound the parties, the Collector had still the jurisdiction to determine the market value of the land...” 29. In view of the principle laid down in the above judgments, when an Award is passed by consent, a right of a landholder to obtain an order of reference would arise only when he has not accepted the award. Once such award is accepted, no legal right in him survives for claiming a reference to the Civil Court. An agreement between the parties as regard the value of the hands acquired by the State is binding on the parties. Once such award is accepted, no legal right in him survives for claiming a reference to the Civil Court. An agreement between the parties as regard the value of the hands acquired by the State is binding on the parties. So long as such agreement and consequently the consent awards are not set-aside in an appropriate proceeding by a Court of law having jurisdiction the petitioners have no right to claim compensation more than the amount awarded for the structures. 30. Even otherwise, the claim of these petitioners in the writ petitions is to award compensation adopting Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-06, as the awards were passed based on Standard Schedule Rates 2002-03. Therefore, in a way, it is a claim for enhancement of compensation which would fall within Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Instead of raising a protest on the amount awarded as compensation for the structures covered by Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006, the petitioners adopted a different procedure circumventing the law and such recourse is impermissible, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra). Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation for structures on enhanced rate, on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-06 by applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra). Accordingly, the point is held against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. 31. On consideration of the facts and circumstances, the respondents could establish that Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 are consent awards and that the compensation for the structures was assessed based on Standard Schedule Rates 2002-03, for enhancement of 25% over it, though notification was published on 01.10.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Since the petitioners herein/land owners agreed to receive the same, while agreeing not to make any claim either in any Court of law or before any authority, such agreement is binding on these petitioners, thereby, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-2006. Consequently, it is difficult to issue a direction as claimed by the petitioners in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 32. Consequently, it is difficult to issue a direction as claimed by the petitioners in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 32. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that these petitioners failed to establish that, Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 are passed under Section 11(1) but not under Section 11(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and did not deny execution of agreement in Form-V prescribed under the Rules. The petitioners not even denied the consent Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 passed by the third respondent, which are filed along with the writ petitions; thereby, no merit lies in the contentions of these petitioners. 33. In the result, writ petitions are dismissed, but however without costs. 34. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.