B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, absolutely, I do not see any justification for the respondents in not honouring the decree dated 1-7-1982 rendered by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kovvur in O. P. No. 45 of 1980 which admittedly, had become final and executable. The petitioner is aged 55 years. Even though the decree was passed more than 11 years back, the same had not been honoured yet. The action of the State in acquiring the property of subject and not paying the compensation for this length of time is highly arbitrary, and atrocious. By this gross inaction of the State to honour the decree which had become final as the decree pertains to payment of compensation in lieu of deprivation of property of the petitioner, the constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India is violated. The State should move faster and pay compensation expeditiously.

( 2 ) THE learned Government Pleader resists the grant of relief in the writ petition on the ground that the decree is executable. It is true, that the decree is executable, and in fact, after O. P. No. 45 of 1980, a reference application was answered enhancing the compensation by its judgment dated 1-7-1982 and the same having been carried in appeal in A. S. No. 639/86 was dismissed on 10-4-1989. Then E. P. No. 130/90 was filed by the petitioner on the file of the executing Court i. e. , the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur. But, so far the same has not been honoured.

( 3 ) THERE are no constitutional fetters placed on the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that merely because an alternative remedy exists, the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. The exercise of writ jurisdiction is a constituent power conferred under the Constitution to a constitutional Court like High Court to issue writs or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any hard and fast rule that in each and every case where there is an alternative remedy, that the Writ Petition should not be entertained. In appropriate cases, the High Court, being the constitutional Court should rise to the occasion to provide effective and speedy remedy, more so, in cases of deprivation of property of a person. In the instant case, the draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 23-2-1978 and the possession was taken over in the said year. A meagre compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre was paid to the petitioner on 31-3-1979 under the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The entire holding of the petitioner is only Ac. 1-71 cents which has been acquired for foreshore submersion of Errakalva reservoir scheme. In fact, as or) this Say, Article 31 relating to fundamental right was there, but by 44th Constitution amendment brought forth into effect somewhere in the month of May,1979, the same was removed. As such, this case is covered by Article 31 of Indian Constitution which was a fundamental right and that will govern this case. Whenever the fundamental right is infracted, alternative remedy is no bar at all and mat is the settled law. Even though the land of the petitioner was acquired by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 conforming to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 31 of Indian Constitution and when the land was compulsorily taken over for a public purpose as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is compulsory in nature, there is always a corresponding obligation to pay the compensation immediately and in any case, not beyond unreasonable period and more so, in cases where the State acquires the property of a citizen under urgency clause. When the State feels that acquisition under urgency clause is necessary, it shall also feel that there is a corresponding obligation on it to pay the compensation to the citizen who is deprived of his property with the same speed. If

Click Here to Read the rest of this document