Telangana High Court
Naini Pedda Mallaiah vs The Special Deputy Collector L.A.O. on 5 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.32469 of 2010
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in adapting delaying Tactics Regarding the payment of remaining part of balance/compensation particularly interest on solatium and Additional Market from 19.12.87 to 07.01.89 on reference court enhanced Market value and Honble High Court enhance market value/as per the amended decree of Hon'ble court in As.No.577/1999 is artibutray, illegal and unconstitutional and further direct the respondent to comply with the provisions of the Article 202 (3) e of the constitution of India on respect of the decree in OP.NO.132/1990 on the file of principal senior civil judge at Warangal obtained against the state by paying compensation to claimants by calculating in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in Guru Preeth Singh Vs Union of India reported in 2006 (10) scale 393..."
2. No representation for the petitioner. Heard learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has been delaying the payment of remaining part of ::2::
balance/compensation particularly interest on solatium and Additional Market from 19.12.1987 to 07.01.1989 on reference Court enhanced Market value and this Court enhanced market value as per the amended decree in A.S.No.577/1999.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that at the stage of admission, this Court granted interim order in W.P.M.P.No.41260 of 2010 in W.P.No.32469 of 2010 on 23.12.2010 and directed the respondent to pay the amount of compensation as per the entitlement of the petitioner pursuant to the final decree, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
5. Even after lapse of more than thirteen years, the respondent did not choose to file counter or vacate petition in this matter denying the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit and the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to get instructions about implementation of the interim orders.
::3::
6. In view of the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of, by making the interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2010 as absolute. If the respondent has still not paid the amount to the petitioner as per the final decree proceedings, the petitioner is at liberty to question the same in appropriate proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date: 05.02.2024 spk