DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ.

( 1 ) REFERENCE to the Larger Bench is on the question of correctness of decision of Full bench of this Court in Vemula Prabhakar and others v. The Land Acquisition Officer and R. D. O. , Peddapalli, Karimnagar and another.

( 2 ) THE Full Bench in the aforesaid decision held that no writ can be issued for implementing the awards passed by the Civil courts in land acquisition proceedings taken out under the provisions of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on the ground that an alternate and efficacious remedy of seeking execution of the award as a decree of Civil Court in accordance with the provisions of Code of civil Procedure, 1908, is available under the act. While holding so, the Full Bench expressly overruled the decisions of this court in Sur Reddy v. The Spl. Deputy collector (LA), Medak, Billa Linga Reddy v. R. D. O. 3, B. Govinda Reddy v. Revenue divisional Officer-cum-L. A. O. and k. Muralidhar Reddy and others v. The special Dy. Collector, LA. Unit, Gadwal and others.

( 3 ) FACTS giving rise to the reference to larger Bench are that a letter received from one Smt. Bhamidipati Annapoorna Bhavani dated 9-8-2004 was taken on judicial side as taken up Writ Petition by the 1st Division bench. In the letter, she made grievance that pursuant to proceedings taken out under the provisions of the Act, she was deprived of her land to the extent of Ac. 4. 95 cts. situated in J. Annavaram village, East Godavari district, for the purpose of Yeleru Project in the year 1987. The Land Acquisition collector had passed awards on 15-10-1988 and 15-2-1990 in respect of the lands acquired in the village by offering paltry sum as compensation against which reference was sought to Civil Court. The amount of compensation was thus determined by the civil Court on 11-4-1999 in O. P. Nos. 280 of 1990 and 24 of 1992. Against the awards of the reference Court, appeals were preferred by the State Government to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court. The supreme Court thus settled the amount of compensation finally. The grievance, which the petitioner made, is that though the compensation payable to her had finally been settled, the State Government had failed to deposit the amount of compensation. Thus, she was driven to seek execution of the award in order to realise the amount of compensation. During execution, all sorts of frivolous objections were raised on behalf of the State Government thereby depriving her the fruits of the award. She being an old lady of 92 years has not yet seen the colour of the money even after seventeen years from the date when she was deprived of the land. She has been of deprivation of her land. She has been unable to realise the money awarded under the awards because of frivolous objections being raised by the State Government to the execution of the awards.

( 4 ) ON notice being issued, the Division bench called upon the respondents to furnish information as to what the State government is proposed to do as regards payment of compensation in cases where compensation had finally been settled and in which no appeals were pending. This information was sought since number of such matters had come to the notice of the court in which for years together even after final determination of the amount of compensation, payable as per law, the State government had not bothered to deposit the amount of compensation to enable the persons, who had been deprived of their property, to take benefit of the amount. The bench also noticed that the dockets of almost all Courts dealing with land acquisition matters throughout the State was heavy, more particularly, due to execution proceedings pending. The Bench also noticed that for one reason or the other, execution petitions were not being allowed to proceed thereby the persons whose lands were acquired for public cause were being deprived of their legitimate amount of compensation determined by the Civil courts. In some cas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document