Govindamma And 5 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2556 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2556 Tel
Judgement Date : 8 September, 2021

Telangana High Court

Govindamma And 5 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 8 September, 2021

Bench: K.Lakshman

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

                    WRIT PETITION No.16144 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri M.V.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area

Development, learned Government Pleader for Finance & Planning and

learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents.

With their consent, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of

admission itself.

2. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in depositing the

decretal amount to the credit of E.P.No.59 of 2019, E.P.No.58 of 2019

and E.P.No.33 of 2019 in O.P.No.34 of 2013, O.P.No.1 of 2014 and

O.P.No.14 of 2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at

Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, has stated

that the official respondents are taking necessary steps to deposit

the amounts and that as and when the amounts are received, the

authorities will deposit the compensation amount.

4. As can be seen from the record, the notification under

Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued way back

on 11.08.2021 and the Award was passed on 03.09.2012.

Subsequently, the compensation amount was enhanced one time more

than the market value determined and awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer, by virtue of the order and decree dated 26.09.2018

passed in OP No.34 of 2013 and batch by the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Gadwal, and the said order has become final as no appeal was

preferred questioning the same.

5. Having regard to the above backdrop of the case, this Court

is of the considered view that the authorities cannot take their own

time to deposit the amounts which are already enhanced by the

competent Court. The inaction of the respondents in paying the

enhanced compensation amounts in time to the petitioners, who

are already suffering from the loss of their land, would make them

also to suffer untold hardship and misery and run from pillar to

post for getting the enhanced compensation deposited and incur

expenses for the same. The petitioners will also have to incur

additional expenditure for approaching the Court for seeking the

required relief. With the rising inflation, the value of the money will

also go down and the delayed payment of the enhanced compensation

will result in the compensation amount itself losing all the charm

and utility. If the petitioners or similarly situated persons receive

the enhanced compensation within the time, they will be in a

position to use that amount in some other investments and get

some returns over the same.

6. Further, in BHIMIDIPATI ANNAPOORNA BHAVANI V/s.

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERi, while dealing with similar issue, the

Larger Bench of this Court has held as under:

"One of the self-imposed restrictions is that High Court generally refrains from entertaining a writ petition when there is adequate and efficacious alternate remedy available to a party, and, when such alternate remedy available is a statutory remedy, such statutory remedy has been duly exhausted. Availability of such alternate and efficacious or statutory remedy itself is not a bar in entertaining a writ petition in the given facts and circumstances. We need not multiply the circumstances in which such discretionary power may be exercised by the Court in such matters despite availability of such alternate, adequate and efficacious remedy. But the limits as noticed in B.GOVINDA REDDY's case supra by a learned Single Judge of this Court are sufficient that in cases arising out of the Act where the amount of

compensation, finally determined has not been paid, a person must first resort to the alternate efficacious remedy of taking out execution and when despite taking out execution proceedings, if there is any delay caused on the part of authorities, resort can be had to filing of a writ petition in this Court and, this Court, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, in appropriate cases, may issue directions for immediate deposit of the amount of compensation by the State Government or the authorities on whose behalf the land has been acquired."

7. At this stage, learned Government Pleader for Land

Acquisition sought four months time from today to deposit the amount

to the credit of the E.Ps.

8. For the afore-stated reasons and the law laid down by the

Larger Bench of this Court in the above referred judgment, the

official respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced

compensation amount, in terms of the order and decree dated

26.09.2018 passed in OP No.34 of 2013 and batch by the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, to the credit of E.P.Nos.59 of 2019, 58 of

2019 and E.P.No.33 of 2019 in O.P.Nos.34 of 2013, O.P.No.1 of 2014

and O.P.No.14 of 2014, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within

a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.