THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.876 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. P.L.Rao, learned counsel for the
appellants.
2. On leave being granted, the writ appeal is taken up
for consideration.
3. Appellants were not arrayed as respondents in
W.P.No.24773 of 2021 filed by respondents No.1 and 2 as the writ petitioners.
4. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the related writ petition taking exception to the inaction of respondents No.3 to 9 in depositing the entire decretal amount to the credit of E.P.No.30 of 2014 in O.P.No.344 of 1995 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. 2
5. Learned Single Judge on a perusal of the materials on record noted that claim made in the writ petition arises out of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 05.07.1979 whereafter award was passed on 22.08.1981. Claimants sought for higher compensation and subsequently the compensation awarded was enhanced. However, the compensation, not to speak of enhanced compensation, was not paid. This led to filing of E.P.No.30 of 2014 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. Learned Single Judge noted that authorities cannot withhold compensation to the affected person for an indefinite period. At that stage, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition sought for four months time to deposit the compensation amount to the credit of E.P.No.30 of 2014.
6. Having regard to the above and the Larger Bench decision of this Court in Bhimidipati Annapoorna 3 Bhavani v. Land Acquisition Officer1, learned Single Judge directed the official respondents i.e., respondents No.3 to 9 to deposit the enhanced compensation amount in terms of the order and decree dated 22.08.1981 to the credit of E.P.No.30 of 2014 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are inamdars of the land which has been acquired, whereas respondents No.1 and 2 are the protected tenants. In this regard, litigation between the two groups is pending before this Court in S.A.No.724 of 2009.
8. On a query by the Court, learned counsel for the appellants submits that no stay or injunction has been granted by this Court in S.A.No.724 of 2009.
9. That being the position and having regard to the fact that learned Single Judge had directed crediting of the 1 2005 (3) ALD 233 (LB) 4 enhanced compensation amount into the account of E.P.No.30 of 2014, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the aforesaid order.
10. Consequently, writ appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 09.03.2023 vs