Chand Pasha And 3 Others vs Akula Babu And 8 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1101 Tel

         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.

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

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

2005 (3) ALD 233 (LB)

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