Point of law : Delay and latches i.e. 14 years delay is not a ground to deny the claim of these petitioners and that the writ petition is maintainable.

ORDER :

1. All these four writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by different petitioners, claiming identical relief, as such, I find it expedient to decide all the four writ petitions by common order, since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same. W.P.No.4286 of 2020 is taken as leading case.

W.P.No.4286 of 2020

The relief claimed in W.P.No.4286 of 2020 is as follows:

“To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioners in respect of their acquired structures covered under Award No.4/97 which has been finally determined in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 dated 26.02.2002 as confirmed in A.S.No.513 of 2004 dated 09.03.2006 inspite of oral and written representations dated 14.03.2012, 20.10.2015, 29.06.2017 and 05.11.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners pursuant to the order and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 dated 26.02.2002 as confirmed in A.S.No.513 of 2004 dated 09.03.2006 in pursuance of the written representations dated 14.03.2012, 20.10.2015, 29.06.2017 and 05.11.2019 made by the petitioners.”

2. The petitioners are the permanent residents of Patimeedipalli Village, Atlur Mandal, Kadapa District. The petitioners possessed land in the village and the structures thereon were sought for acquisition for Somasila Project under Notification dated 01.03.1995 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, Award No.4 of 1997 was passed on 24.11.1997, awarding compensation for the structures. The petitioners received compensation amount for the structures under protest, as the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the structures was not commensurate with the value. Thereupon, they sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation awarded, vide Award No.4 of 1997.

3. In pursuance of the request made by the petitioners, a reference was made to the District Judge, Kadapa, the same was registered as L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 and it was disposed of by the District Judge, Kadapa, enhancing compensation for the structures 100% over and above the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, granting statutory benefits vide decree and order dated 26.02.2002.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kadapa in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001, the third respondent preferred A.S.No.513 of 2004 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was allowed in part, modifying the direction in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 reducing the enhanced compensation from 100% to 80% over and above the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and confirmed the same in all other respects i.e. for payment of statutory benefits.

5. The third respondent paid compensation amount pursuant to the decree passed by the High Court in A.S.No.513 of 2004 dated 09.03.2006 in part, but did not choose to pay additional compensation, interest @ 9% on additional market value and 15% of solatium on the awarded amount as per the order and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001. The petitioners requested to pay the amount, but the authorities have been postponing the same on one pretext or the other.

6. The third respondent made the petitioners believe that the compensation would be paid, but they did not pay the same till 2012. The third respondent did not pay compensation despite several oral representations made by the petitioners and the petitioners made written representation dated 14.03.2012 requesting for payment of compensation and the same was acknowledged. Inspite of that, the third respondent did not take any steps for payment of compensation and as such, the petitioners made another representations dated 20.10.2015