Chappidi Ravi vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2566 Tel

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

                  WRIT PETITION No.16852 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area

Development, 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.47 of 2006 in O.S.No.69

of 1993 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda,

Nalgonda District, in terms of Judgment and decree dated 29.10.1999,

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 21.06.1969 and the land of Pullaiah and Pichaiah, the original

owners was proposed to acquire. In Award enquiry the said Pullaiah

and Pichaiah requested to provide alternate land instead of

compensation but the Government neither provided alternate land nor

paid compensation. The petitioners herein are the legal heirs of said

Pullaiah and Pichaiah. Later the Government vacated the acquired

land saying that the purpose of acquisition was over. Even then, the

petitioners herein requested the authorities to return their lands

without claiming for damages. Since the authorities did not heed their

request, they filed W.P.No.13572 of 1987 before the then High Court of

Andhra Pradesh seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition authorities

to return their lands and the High Court, after due consideration, by

order dated 06.12.1988 directed the Land Acquisition authorities to

return their lands after initiating withdrawal proceedings under

Section 48 of the Act within eight weeks from the date of its order. But

the Land Acquisition authorities did not respond. Then a Contempt

Case vide C.C.No.598 of 1989 was filed. Then the Land Acquisition

Authorities returned only part of the land acquired by retaining some

extents with them and now they have constructed some Government

Offices in the retained extents. Therefore, the suit O.S.No.69 of 1993

was filed by Sappidi Ramulu, legal heir of said Pullaiah and Eumala

Pthima, legal heir of Sappidi Pichaiah, seeking for compensation and

other benefits.

5. The Senior Civil Judge's Court, Miryalaguda, has decreed the

said suit in part granting damages and directing the Land Acquisition

authorities to return the lands to the plaintiffs therein within 8 weeks.

In terms of the said decree, the plaintiffs therein have filed Execution

Petition vide E.P.No.46 of 2006 and the same was dismissed recording

the submission of the Government that they will deposit the amount in

one month. Then the present Execution Petition vide E.P.No.47 of

2006 is filed and the same was ordered for attachment of land. Even in

the appeal vide A.S.No.2092 of 2000 preferred by the respondent

authorities the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1999 in O.S.No.69 of

1993 was confirmed. The Civil Appeals filed by the respondent

authorizes before the Hon'ble Apex Court were dismissed on

25.04.2017. Even as on today, the compensation amounts have not

been deposited.

6. 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 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 compensation

will result in the compensation amount itself losing all the charm

and utility. If the petitioners or similarly situated persons receive

the 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.

7. 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."

8. 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.P.

9. 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

compensation amount, in terms of the judgment and decree dated

29.10.1999 passed in O.S.No.69 of 1993, to the credit of E.P.No.47 of

2006 in O.S.No.69 of 1993 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Miryalaguda, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period

of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be

no order as to costs.

11. Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this writ petition, if any,

shall stand closed in the light of this final order.

_________________ K.LAKSHMAN, J Date: 09.09.2021 Note: Issue copy by 13.09.2021.

b/o. vvr

i 2005 (3) ALD 233 (LB)