( 1 ) IN this writ petition a question of public importance i. e. , whether the existence of an alternative remedy by way of execution proceedings deter this Court in directing the Government to pay the enhanced compensation forthe compulsory acquisition of the lands belonging to the petitioners in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India arises for consideration.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government pleader for Land Acquisition.

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the lands belonging to the petitioners along with others were acquired for construction of Singo or Project in the year 1982 by issuance of a draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act (herein after referred as the Act ) published in the A. P. Gazette on 13-07-1982. By invoking the urgency clause, the respondents have taken possession of the lands dispensing with 5 (a) inquiry under the act. The respondents passed award on 19-12-1985 and on an application filed by the petitioners a reference was made to Civil court under Section 18 of the Act for enhanced compensation. The District Judge, medak in O. P. No. 191/87 and batch dated 31 -07-1989 enhanced the compensation to a tune of Rs. 12,000 per acre for dry lands. The respondents carried the matter in appeal by filing A. S. No. 73/92, which was ultimately dismissed on21-01-1994. But the respondents did not chose to pay the enhanced compensation for a long time. The execution proceedings initiated by the petitioners did not yield any fruitful results. In those circumstances, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to deposit the entire enhanced compensation amount as per the orders of the Civil Court, in the District Court, Medak at Sangareddy.

( 4 ) THE Government Pleader for the Land acquisition strenuously contended that this court cannot give such a direction by giving a go-bye to the general law governing the relationship between the parties. In other words the Government Pleader contends that if the Government fails to pay the enhanced compensation the petitioners are at liberty to initiate proceedings for execution of the decree under the provisions of C. P. C. where under the rights of the petitioners are fully protected, but the petitioners cannot approach this Court directlysurcumventing the ordinary law of the land.

( 5 ) IT is now well settled principle that mere existence of an alternative remedy does not deter this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to extend its protective umbrella to a citizen and see that his just claims are not defeated by technicalities. Keeping this principle in mind I would like to examine the facts of this case.

( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the lands belonging to the petitioners were taken over in the year 1982, i. e. , about 14 years back, and the Land acquisition Officer has taken nearly 3 1/2 years to pass an award under the Act. From the record now it is seen that the compensation awarded by the respondent was very meagre and on a reference made to the Civil Court the compensation payable to the petitioners was enhanced in a substantial measure. The Civil Court has taken 4 years to pass the award i. e. , on 31-07-1989, but the respondents without paying the enhanced compensation carried the matter in appeal and the appeal was dismissed on 21-01-1994. In other words, the respondents gained breathing time of over five years in resisting the just claim of the petitioners to receive adequate compensation in lieu of the compulsory acquisition of their lands. Though the award proceedings became final on 21-01-1994 i. e. , about 2112 years back the respondents did not chose to pay the enhanced compensation and went on postponing the execution proceeding swith out any justifiable cause. If I may say so, this is not a solitary incident and it is not the first case where this court came across of such a s