WP/9614/2005 of M.Venkata Reddy, Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA) on 26 December 2005

O R D E R :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the enhancedcompensation as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioner is the owner of Ac.3.25 cents in s.No.6 of Lingapallem Village,Rapur Mandal, Nellore District. His land came to be acquired for Telugu GangaProject under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. An award No.95/87 came to bepassed fixing the compensation. On a reference to the Civil Court, compensation tothe land came to be enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per acre and foreucalyptus trees from Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per metric tonne. The petitioner preferredan appeal being A.S.No.1490 of 1998 in this court. In the appeal compensation foreucalyptus trees came to be enhanced by Rs.100/-. The respondents carried thematter in an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court remanded thematter back to this Court with certain conditions. The order of the Supreme Court inCivil Appeal No.7447 of 2003 reads as under:

“ The impugned decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside. Thematter is remanded to the High Court for disposal of the appeal of therespondent afresh in accordance with law. However, as a pre-condition to this order the appellant shall deposit 25% of the disputedamount with the High Court within a period of 8 weeks from today. Indefault of making such deposit 25% of the enhanced amount with theHigh court within a period of 8 weeks, this order will stand recalledand the appeal will stand dismissed. In the event such deposit ismade the High court may pass suitable orders for investment of theamount or withdrawal of the amount subject to such terms andconditions, as it may think fit.matter is remanded to the High Court for disposal of the appeal of therespondent afresh in accordance with law. However, as a pre-condition to this order the appellant shall deposit 25% of the disputedamount with the High Court within a period of 8 weeks from today. Indefault of making such deposit 25% of the enhanced amount with theHigh court within a period of 8 weeks, this order will stand recalledand the appeal will stand dismissed. In the event such deposit ismade the High court may pass suitable orders for investment of theamount or withdrawal of the amount subject to such terms andconditions, as it may think fit.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.”

3. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the time allowed for depositing25 % of the amount has been expired and an application seeking extension of timeis moved which is pending.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition ismaintainable for implementation of the award passed by the Civil Court in view ofthe larger bench decision of this court passed in W.P.No.14939 of 2004 (BhimidipatiAnnapoorna Bhavani v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Yeleru Reservoir Project,Peddapuram, E.G. District) wherein it has been held as follows:

“ The above discussion would lead us to hold that the power, which the HighCourt exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution, is adiscretionary power. Though the power is discretionary and no limitscan be placed upon such discretion, it has been held judicially thatpower must be exercised along recognized lines and not arbitrarily.There are no limits to such power and has to be exercisedjudiciously. However, while exercising this power courts haveimposed certain limits in exercise of those powers, which are knownas self-imposed limitations. One of the self imposed restrictions isthat High court generally refrains from entertaining a writ petitionwhen there is adequate and efficacious alternate remedy available toa party, and, when such alternate remedy available is a statutoryremedy, such statutory remedy has been duly exhausted. Availabilityof such alternate and efficacious or statutory remedy itself is not a barin entertaining a writ petition in the given facts and circumstances.We need not multiply the circumstances in which such discretionarypower may be exercised by the Court in such matters despiteavailability of such alternate, adequate and efficacious remedy. Butthe limits as noticed in B.Govinda Reddy’s case supra by a learnedsingle Judge of this Court are sufficient that in cases arising out ofthe Act where the amount of compensation, finally determined hasnot been paid, a person must first resort to the alternate efficaciousremedy of taking out execution and when despite taking outexecution proceedings, if there is any delay caused on the part ofauthorities, resort can be had to filing of a writ petition in this Courtand, this Court, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, inappropriate cases, may issue directions for immediate deposit of theamount of compensation by the State Government or the authoritieson whose behalf the land has been acquired.Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution, is adiscretionary power. Though the power is discretionary and no limitscan be placed upon such discretion, it has been held judicially thatpower must be exercised along recognized lines and not arbitrarily.There are no limits to such power and has to be exercisedjudiciously. However, while exercising this power courts haveimposed certain limits in exercise of those powers, which are knownas self-imposed limitations. One of the self imposed restrictions isthat High court generally refrains from entertaining a writ petitionwhen there is adequate and efficacious alternate remedy available toa party, and, when such alternate remedy available is a statutoryremedy, such statutory remedy has been duly exhausted. Availabilityof such alternate and efficacious or statutory remedy itself is not a barin entertaining a writ petition in the given facts and circumstances.We need not multiply the circumstances in which such discretionarypower may be exercised by the Court in such matters despiteavailability of such alternate, adequate and efficacious remedy. Butthe limits as noticed in B.Govinda Reddy’s case supra by a learnedsingle Judge of this Court are sufficient that in cases arising out ofthe Act where the amount of compensation, finally determined hasnot been paid, a person must first resort to the alternate efficaciousremedy of taking out execution and when despite taking outexecution proceedings, if there is any delay caused on the part ofauthorities, resort can be had to filing of a writ petition in this Courtand, this Court, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, inappropriate cases, may issue directions for immediate deposit of theamount of compensation by the State Government or the authoritieson whose behalf the land has been acquired.

In view of the above, we hold that the view taken by the Full Bench in VemulaPrabhakar’s case that in a matter arising out of the Act, writ petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction against theState to deposit the amount of compensation determined which hasfinally been settled will not be maintainable is bad and contrary to theprinciples of law as noticed hereinabove and accordingly weoverrule the same and hold that the view taken by the learned singleJudge in B.Govinda Reddy’s case is the correct exposition of law.Prabhakar’s case that in a matter arising out of the Act, writ petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction against theState to deposit the amount of compensation determined which hasfinally been settled will not be maintainable is bad and contrary to theprinciples of law as noticed hereinabove and accordingly weoverrule the same and hold that the view taken by the learned singleJudge in B.Govinda Reddy’s case is the correct exposition of law.

The reference is answered accordingly.”

6. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The land of the petitioner came to beacquired about 22 years ago and enhanced compensation has not been paid. Hiseffort to get the enhanced amount recovered by levying the execution applicationproved to be futile and thus he approached this Court invoking extra ordinaryjurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. The respondents’ application seekingextension of time is pending and the same is stated to be coming up forconsideration on 3.4.2006. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed ofdirecting the respondents to deposit the amount within six months from today.However, this order will be subject to the orders to be passed by the Supreme Courtin the application moved by the respondents for extension of time.

Dt: 26-12-2005. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J)Tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEB.SESHASAYANA REDDY

DISPOSED OF ON 26-12-2005