B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions can be disposed of by this common order as common questions of fact and law arise for consideration. I have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government pleader for Land Acquisition, though the matters are listed for admission only. FACTS IN BRIEF

( 2 ) THE first respondent herein acquired a total extent of Ac. 23. 15 cents of land situated in Peapully village for the purpose of construction of perculating tank by name ramannacheruvu . The petitioners in these two writ petitions are the owners/claimants of the said land. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that advance possession of the land was taken over by the first respondent for the aforesaid public purpose on 1-12-1981, the requisition department did not deposit the amount for payment of compensation to the owners of the said land for several years. Ultimately, notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) was published on 5-3-1992. Thereafter the first respondent passed award No. 3/93 on 30-9-1993 awarding an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per acre for the dry land; Rs. 20,000-00 per acre for the wet land; and Rs. 18,000-00 per acre for irrigable dry land.

( 3 ) THE petitioners herein, however, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and at their instance, the award was referred to the Principal subordinate Judge, Kurnool in O. P. Nos. 16,10, 7,13,19, 94,11, 6, 5, 8, 9,17, 14, 4, 15 and 41/94 and 374, 93, 307/97, 385/93; 384/93; 376/93; 31/94; 377/93; 32/94; 1/94; 2/94; 3/94; 375/93; 378/93; 379/93; 380/93; 12/94 and 18/94 respectively. These Original petitions were disposed of on 29-1-1996 enhancing compensation over and above what has been awarded by the Land acquisition Officer from Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 20,000 per acre for dry land; rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000-00 per acre for wet land; and Rs. 18,000/- to rs. 30,000-00 per acre for irrigable dry land.

( 4 ) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the respondents herein have not preferred any appeals against the said Order and Decree passed by the learned Prl. Subordinate Judge, Kurnool and they have become final The petitioners are stated to have preferred execution petitions on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge for realisation of the amounts due to them. The court is also stated to have already passed orders directing attachment of movable properties of the first respondent, as early as in the month of April, 1997. In spite of attachment of movables, the respondents have not, so far, deposited the amounts.

( 5 ) IT is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T. Niranjan Reddy that the action of respondents herein in refusing to deposit the amounts pursuant to the Orders and decrees passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is arbitrary and unfair. It is submitted that the respondents are duty bound to pay the amounts of compensation to the petitioners, in terms of the Award and decrees and failure to do so would amount to depriving the petitioners of their properties without payment of compensation. The action, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the part of the respondents in refusing to deposit the amount is not only illegal, but also un-constitutional. According to the learned counsel, the inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to deposit the amounts into the Court and to the satisfaction of the execution petitions already filed by the petitioners.

( 6 ) THERE cannot be any dispute that the petitioners are entitled for the amount of compensation already awarded in their favour by competent Court of Civil jurisdiction on a reference m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document