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
(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
