Telangana High Court
B.Radhika Reddy vs Smt. Valluri Kranti on 14 June, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
CONTEMPT CASE No.2798 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Ajgal Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing on behalf of respondent.
2. This Contempt Case is filed complaining that the orders dated 26.06.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15989 of 2023 are violated.
3. The para No.4 of the order dated 26.06.2023 passed in W.P. No. 15989 of 2023 reads as under:
"4. Taking into consideration the contentions at Paragraph No.7 of the written instructions submitted by the respondent authority (referred to and extracted above), that the proposals for the sanction of balance decretal amount towards the payment of interest of 30% Solitum in E.P.No.1 of 2014 in O.P.No.76 of 1987 were submitted to the Collector, Jogulamba Gadwal District and soon after the sanction orders, the SN, J 2 CC_2798_2023 amount will be deposited, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the District Collector i.e., respondent No.4 herein to initiate appropriate action for sanction of balance decretal amount towards the payment of interest of 30% Solitum in E.P.No.1 of 2014 in O.P.No.76 of 1987 within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs".
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader brings on record Letter dated 01.05.2024 of the Collector and District Magistrate, Jogulamba Gadwal, and the same reads as under:
"Further vide reference 2nd cited, the Hon'ble High Court Hyderabad disposed vide A.S. No. 1094/94 dt: 15.06.2004 and dismissed the appeal and modified the Decree of the Lower Court doth order and decree as follows:
1 That, the claimants shall be entitled to the interest on 30% Solatum.
2. That save as aforesaid the decree of the Lower court do stand confirmed in all other respects and
3. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal.
SN, J 3 CC_2798_2023 In view of the above, the Tahsildar Undavally/LAO, as per Hon'ble High Court order the calculation sheet made and deposited an amount of Rs.18,62,468/ at Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Gadwal on vide Demand Draft No.161130, Dt:28.03.2024 regarding EP.No.01/2014 in OP.No.76/1987 pertaining to Undavally Village and Mandal.
Further, it is submitted that, the claimant has claimed interest on land value + 30% Solatium + 12% Additional Market Value. But as per the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad, Judgment and Decree order dated 15.06.2004 in Appeal No.1094/94 in O.P. No.76/1984 the claimant is eligible for interest on 30% solatium only, but not interest on 12% Additional Market Value. The Land Acquistion Officer calculated as per Hon'ble High Court order which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India".
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.21,75,316/- but however, the said amounts have not been deposited and released to the petitioner. The learned SN, J 4 CC_2798_2023 counsel also brings to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is entitled for more amounts as per the view taken by the Apex Court in the Judgment dated 08.02.2011 State of Punjab Vs. Amarjit Singh and Another 1.
6. Since the pleas as put forth by the petitioner as per petitioner's legal entitlement under law are disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition who contends that petitioner is eligible for 30% solatium only but not interest at 12% additional market value, this Court opines that the said disputed issues cannot be gone into under Contempt jurisdiction.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and duly considering the contents of the letter dated 01.05.2024 of the Collector and District Magistrate, Jogulamba Gadwal, the respondents are directed to forthwith comply with the order of this Court dated 26.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.15989 of 2023. The Contempt Case is 1 (2011) 4 SCC 734 SN, J 5 CC_2798_2023 accordingly closed, giving liberty to the petitioner to put forth all petitioner's grievances to the respondents herein and seek petitioner's amounts due to the petitioner as per petitioner's lawful entitlement by filing a representation to the respondents herein within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the present order and the respondents shall consider the same, taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 08.02.2011 in State of Punjab Vs. Amarjit Singh and Another reported in 2011 (4) SCC Page 734 and take a decision within two weeks thereafter, in accordance to law, and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 14.06.2024.
Skj