S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) WHETHER the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India can issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment in relation to the amount enhanced by the civil court in a reference made under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 ( the Act for brevity) is the question which has been referred by a learned Judge of this Court noticing various decisions of the Division Bench of this Court and an unreported judgment in Writ petition No. 12763 of 1999 holding that such writ petitions are maintainable. A learned single Judge in Sur Reddy and others v. Special deputy Collector (LA) Medak held that existence of remedy by way of execution petition before a civil court is not a bar and the writ petition is maintainable. The referring Judge was of the opinion that a question would arise as to whether by reason of non-payment of such enhanced compensation the right of the awardees under Article 300-A of the Constitution has been taken away.

( 2 ) ALL these writ petitions have been filed by the awardees in whose favour judgments have been passed by the civil court on a reference made by the Collector under section 18 of the Act either directly before this Court or after filing execution petitions in the civil courts. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners would submit: (1) having regard to the scheme of the provisions of the Act, provisions of Order 41 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 ( the Code for short) are not directly applicable in respect of the award made by the court; (2) as the Collector is under an obligation to make payment of such award in terms of Section 31 of the Act, no execution petition would be maintainable. They would further submit that in any event, execution of a decree is an ineffective remedy whereby no real benefit is accorded to the awardees. Having regard to the provisions of Article 300-A of the constitution, this Court can issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the collector to make payments. If no writ of mandamus is issued, a discrimination may result between those in whose favour an award has been passed under Section 28-A of the Act and those who are the beneficiaries of the judgment under Sec. 18 of the Act. Section 55 or Order 21 Rule 30, order 21 Rule 37 of the Code have not been proved to be effective remedy and thus the availability of alternative remedy which is merely a rule of convenience should not be applied in such a case. Even in terms of second proviso appended to Article 31-A of the Constitution, when the land of a farmer who holds lands within the ceiling limit is acquired, he is to be paid just compensation. As by reason of payment of compensation no favour is shown, the Court should implement the same. Reliance in this connection has been placed on a large number of decisions in Whirlpool Corpn v. Registrar of Trade Marks, B. Govinda Reddy v. R. D. O. , B. G. Reddy v. Revenue Divnl. Officer- cum-L. A. O. , Ram Chand v. Union of India, k. Krishna Reddy v. Spl. Dy Collector, Billa linga Reddy v. R. D. O. 7, Sur Reddy v. The Spl deputy Collector (LA), K. Muralidhar Reddy v. The Spl. Dy Collector, D. G. Mahajan v. State of maharashtra and State of West Bengal v. Anil chandra Choudhury.

( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that the award made in terms of Section 18 of the Act being a decree, it can be executed only in an execution proceedings. The learned Counsel would contend that even two Division benches of this Court in Writ Appeal no. 1506 of 1999, dated 3-11-1999 and Writ petition No. 12763 of 1999 had taken the same view. The learned Government pleader has also drawn our attention to chan Shyam Das Gupta v. Anant Kumar sinha, R. N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik, sur Reddy (supra), Net Ram v. Union of India, Dodla Malliah v. State of Andhra pradesh, H. G. Shivanandappa v. State of karnataka, Chand Ram

Click Here to Read the rest of this document