L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE entire village of Pothapi of Nandalur Mandal, Cuddapah District, was affected by sub-mergence in Somacilla Project. The village was divided into 11 Reaches and proceedings were initiated for acquisition of lands as well as the structures thereon. The lands of the petitioners are in Reaches 4,5,8 and 9. Notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the act) were issued and Award was passed in the year 1999 fixing the compensation for the lands as well as the structures belonging to the petitioners.

( 2 ) THE petitioners complain that though the Award was passed in the year 1999, the compensation as determined therein was not paid. The petitioners were served with separate endorsements dated 5-8-2002 to the effect that the payment of compensation for their lands cannot be made for the reasons that as per the judgments of the Honble supreme Court reported in AIR 1960 SC 1203 [LQ/SC/1960/170] and the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1961 hp 20 [LQ/HimHC/1960/14] , if the constructions collapse either before passing the Award or before taking possession of the same, the compensation need not be paid. It was further stated that according to the Video taken by the Special collector, Telugu Ganga Project, and the report secured by him, the structures on the land of the petitioners were dilapidated. Hence, the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation as determined in the award.

( 3 ) THE writ petition came for admission on 20-11-2002. Inasmuch as the matter was in a narrow compass, the Government pleader for Land Acquisition was granted time to obtain instructions. On 22-11-2002, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, argued the matter extensively.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the lands of the petitioners together with the structures thereon have been acquired and Award was passed. The impugned endorsement, in its true translation, reads as under: office of Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) Telugu Ganga project, Nellore, At Rajampet. R. C. C. No. 189/2002 Dt. 5-8-2002 endorsement it is not feasible to pay the compensation for the structures on your land in Sy. No. 913/1-A, for the following reasons: as per Ruling of the Honble supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1203 and Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in AIR 1961 HC 20, if the structures collapse before passing the award or before taking possession of the land, the compensation need not be paid therefore. According to the Video-graph and the Verification report secured by the special Deputy Collector, Telugu ganga Project, Rajampet, the structures on your land/walls only/skeleton, have collapsed". "Sd/- Special Deputy collector (Land Acquisition) Nellore at Rajampet to nellore Penchala Reddy s/o late Pabbareddy Nellore Thimina Reddy S/o Pitcha Reddy village, Neetamma, Nandaluru Mandal, Cuddapah District. "

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners Sri O. Manohar Reddy, submits that once the Award has been passed in respect of the lands as well as the structures thereon, it is not open to the Land Acquisition Officer to refuse to pay the compensation, either in its entirety on in part. He submits that on passing an Award, the Land Acquisition officer ceases to have any power to modify or otherwise change the Award. It is his further contention that the details referred to in the impugned endorsement have no application to the facts of the case.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that if it was found that the structures for which the compensation was determined did not exist on the site, the government cannot be compelled to pay the compensation. He submits that the verification report as well as the Video taken out as regards the said structures has revealed that they have collapsed and compensation was not payable to them at all.

( 7 ) THE Act stipulates a detailed and comprehensive procedure in the matter of acquisition of lands and payment of compensation therefor. Once the formalities of issuance of notifications under Sees. 4 (1) and 6 and the enquiry of claims for compensation under Sections 9, 10 and 11 are completed, the Land Acquisition Officer is vested with the power to pass an Award for payment of the compensation for the acquired land as well as the structures thereon. While passing the Award, the Land acquisition Officer is expected to take into account not only the valuation of the land, but also the structures thereon, if they exist. With the passing of an Award, the Land acquisition Officer becomes functions officio, for all practical purposes. The Act does not vest any power in the Land Acquisition officer to review his Award or to reopen it. In fact, the Honble Supreme Court has time and again held that the compensation payable to the owner of the land under the award is the minimum and under no circumstances even a civil Court or a superior authority can reduce it.

( 8 ) THE impugned endorsement made by the 2nd respondent is in effect nothing but reviewing the respective Awards passed in favour of the petitioners. Since no such power is vested in the Land Acquisition officer, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained.

( 9 ) THE 2nd respondent, who is the Land acquisition Officer, has issued the endorsement on the directions issued by the 1st respondent. i.e., the Special Deputy collector (LA), Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore at Rajampet. The reference to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court and that of the Himachal Pradesh High court appears to be the ingenuity of the 1st respondent. The endorsement also reveals that the 1st respondent got the area video graphed and obtained a report.

( 10 ) FIRST, the judgments referred to in the impugned endorsement are of no application to the issue at all. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1960 SC 1203 [LQ/SC/1960/170] dealt with the question of acquisition of lands for Companies under Chapter 7 of the act and the public purpose involved in acquisition in such cases. The judgment of the Himachal Pradesh dealt with the case where, in a reference under Section 18 against the Award, the trial Court awarded compensation for certain structures which did not exist as on the date of the Award. As such it has no application to the facts of the present case.

( 11 ) IT is not in dispute that the structures referred to in the Award did exist by the date of passing the same in the year 1999. Even if it is assumed that the structures became dilapidated or have fallen down subsequent to the passing of the Award, the same does not constitute any ground or basis to deny the compensation for the structures. The Video Graph, which is obviously taken subsequent to the passing of the award, cannot be any basis to deny the compensation to the petitioners.

( 12 ) IT appears that the 1st respondent wanted to exhibit a semblance of enthusiasm and to create a picture as though he is endeavoring to save money to the government by denying the compensation to the petitioners for the dilapidated structures. In his enthusiasm, he forgot the fact that once the possession of acquired lands and structures are taken for the submergence in an Irrigation Project, people will leave the place even before the Award is passed and it is not the responsibility of the owners of the lands and structures to keep them intact till the compensation is paid or till some enthusiastic officers like the 1st respondent video-graphs it. Even the endorsements are so vague that they do not state as to whether the structures referred to therein were walls, buildings and what their conditions was. The whole effort appears to be to deny the compensation to the petitioners and to get a pat from the government for saving some amount. In the process, it is forgotten that the delayed payment had only caused the exchequer more in the form of interest.

( 13 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. Under Section 31 of the Act, the Land acquisition Officer is under obligation to offer the compensation as determined under the Award while pronouncing it. The Act docs not contemplate the pronouncement of the Award and deferring the payment of compensation. Even where reference is made under Section 30 of theto the Civil court, as regards entitlement and apportionment, the compensation is to be deposited in the Court. There did not exist any justification in withholding the compensation to the petitioners, either in part or in whole, once the award was made.

( 14 ) VIEWED from any angle, the impugned endorsements cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the compensation payable to the petitioners under the Awards, which remained unpaid, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, together with interest payable under the.