Singireddy Mallaiah vs The Special Deputy Collector ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 484 Tel

Telangana High Court

Singireddy Mallaiah vs The Special Deputy Collector ... on 5 February, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

             WRIT PETITION No.33112 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 on reference court enhanced Market value from 19.12.1987 to 25.11.1988 as per the decree of Hon'ble High Court in As.No.432 of 1999 is arbitrary, 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.95 of 1990 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, 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 25.11.1988 on

reference Court enhanced Market value and this Court

enhanced market value as per the decree in A.S.No.432 of

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.42047 of 2010 in W.P.No.33112

of 2010 on 29.12.2010 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 29.12.2010 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