- (1.)The admitted facts are: The land of the petitioners comprising about Ac. 6-60 cents forming part of Ac. 17-15 cents was acquired under Section 4 (1) notification, dated 9-1-1976 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. Possession of the land was also taken over on 28-1-1976 and the same was handed over to the A.P.S.R.T.C. for which the land was acquired and the constructions later were also effected. Various writ petitions including contempt case in this behalf were filed as there was lot of delay in finalising the award. Therefore a direction was given in contempt case No. 45/83 on 26-12-1983 to finalise the award within six weeks. Then the award 6/84 was finalised wherein the value of the land in question was determined at the value which is laid down in the Urban Land Ceiling Act treating the same analogous to the lands that would be taken possession of in case the same are found to be in excess and surrendered to the Government under the said Urban Ceiling Act, and not in accordance with the principles laid down under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award held.
"Even if one considers the possibility that lands were converted into non-agricultural lands, almost all the land holders will be affected by Urban Land Ceiling Act and most of the lands have to be surrendered to the Government in case it is recategorised as nonagriculture. The maximum limit that an individual can possess in Vijayawada Town is 1500 Sq. metres of Urban land only. Even if the extremely unlikely change of category from agriculture to nonagriculture takes place all the land holders become surplus holders under Urban Land Ceiling Act and hence they will get the compensation fixed for that particular crtegory of land under Urban Land Ceiling Act itself. Thus if the present holders ever claim to treat this land as one fit for the house site, it will be reasonable to give the same compensation as would have been given to the claimants under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and there will be no justification for giving the same rate which a non-agricultural land in the same vicinity will fetch".
In the counter also it is stated in paragraph-6.
"6.. . .the total extent of Ac. 8-92 cents notified for acquisition is N.T.S. No. 369/1 an extent of Ac. 1-60 is affected by the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the remaining extent of Acs. 7-32 cents is only the agricultural lands according to the information furnished by the Special Officer and competent authority Urban Land Ceilings Vijayawada by the time of the actual proceedings of the L.A. case and by the time of handing over possession of land by the landholders to the A.P.S.R.T.C. the Urban Land Ceilings Act is in force and hence the acquisition has to be made basing on the principles laid down in the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The compensation fixed in this case is based on several factors prevailing at that time and in case the land holders are dissatisfied with the award made they can prefer a claim under Section 18 (1) of the L.A. Act. In the instant case detailed reasons were given in the award already made for arriving at a particular ratio. The Land-holders who are dissatisfied with the award made have preferred their claims under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act for proper determination of the compensation by the Civil Court. It is not true to say that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value in this case with a malafide intention".

(2.)The contention of the learned counsel that the impugned award is in contravention of the statutory provisions and also has been passed out of sheer vindictiveness as a contempt case was filed against the said officer in deliberately delaying the matters. The counter-contentions of the learned Government pleader based on the averments made in paragraph 6 of the counter and relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ambalal vs. Ahmedbad Municipality wherein it was held :
"The lands were properly notified for acquisition. The compensation payable in respect of the lands has been determined. If there is any grievance which the appellants are entitled to raise in respect of the compensation determined as payable, their remedy lies in approaching the courts competent to determine that question. The plea of infringement of fundamental rights of the appellants is wholly unsubstantial and was rightly not raised before the High Court in the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise".
and that it is open to the Land Acquisition officer to determine the amount of compensation in the award and that it is only an offer made by him to the owner and that it is open to the owner either to accept the offer or if he is aggrieved by the same to seek reference of the award to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. True such a submission is plausible in cases where the land acquisition authority determines the amount of compensation in the light of proper statutory provisions, namely Land Aequisition Act. but it is hard for this court to accede to the submission in cases where the Land Acquisition Officer deviates from the legal obligations, which mandate him to follow certain legal provisions, namely in this case instead of following the principles laid down under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 he has himself mis-guided and adopted the guidelines laid down under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, which is highly misplaced for two reasons at any rate. namely (1) the notification under Section 4 (1) is admittely published on 9-1-1976 which is prior to the advant of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, which cams into vogue on 17-2-1976 and (ii) the authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act has also stated that the land in question is not 'vacant land' within the meaning of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, but it is agricultural land. Notwithstanding this the land is sought to be treated as 'vacant land' and consequently the principles laid down under the Urban Land Ceiling Act are sought to be attracted and then the amount of compensation is determined So, the award is wholly opposed to the statutory provisions under which he is expected to finalise the award. Hence the impugned award is set aside and the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to determine the amount of compensation under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 in the light of the observations made herein within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(3.)In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Advocate's Fee Rs. 100/-.