TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) LAND measuring 1851. 60 sq. yards owned by the petitioners was acquired in terms of award No. LAC (C) 23/1983-84 dated 9-2-1987 made by the respondent. A total amount of Rs. 15,36,828. 80 Ps. was determined and held payable to the petitioners as compensation for the property acquired to be shared by them equally. Out of the amount so determined a sum of Rs. 6,59,882/- is said to have been paid to the petitioners on 21-2-1994 thereby leaving a balance of Rs. 8,76,946. 80 Ps. The petitioners' case in the present writ petitions is that even though the possession of the land was taken over on 22-2-1994 yet the balance amount of compensation due and payable to them under the award was not released in their favour thereby forcing the petitioners to file the present writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the balance amount of compensation in their favour with interest due thereon.

( 2 ) WHEN this matter came up before me on 26-9-1995, Mr. K. P. Ashok Kumar, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners having been received from the Corporation of the City of Bangalore only a day before i. e. , on 15-9-1995, given a short adjournment the amount in question would be disbursed to the petitioners after fulfilling the requisite formalities like obtaining an indemnity bond etc. , from them. The matter was accordingly directed to be posted today to enable the respondent to do the needful after due compliance with the formalities, if any.

( 3 ) WHEN the matter came up today, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents instead of reporting disbursement of the amount of compensation; in terms of his submission made on 26-9-1995 filed a statement of objections on behalf of the respondent in which it is asserted that the present writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners have an alternate remedy open to them by way of a suit and praying that the petition may be dismissed on that account. Alternatively, it is urged that the payment of compensation amount in question could not be made to the petitioners in time since the beneficiary namely the Corporation of City of Bangalore had not deposited the said amount with the respondent and also because one Y. L. Krishna Murthy had filed a claim petition before the respondent on 15-4-1995. The said Sri Krishna Murthy is also said to have filed O. S. No. 10395/1994 which is presently pending trial in the City Civil Court Bangalore. It is also pointed out that the said Sri. Krishnamurthy and others had filed another petition on 15-2-1995 narrating the circumstances of the case and seeking proper directions.

( 4 ) THE statement of objections further points out that the petitioners and Sri Y. L. Krishna Murthy had appeared before the respondent on 27-9-1994 and wanted the respondent to apportion the compensation amount between the petitioner and the said Sri. Krishnamurthy to which course the respondent is said to have disagreed. In the premises, the statement of objections filed by the respondent makes a prayer for the dismissal of the writ petitions.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents.

( 6 ) IN so far as the objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition is concerned I find no substance in the same in view of the specific provision contained in Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, according to which the Collector is upon making of the award bound to tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested and entitled to receive the same under the award unless he is prevented by some one or more of the contingencies contemplated under sub-section (2) of the said Section.

( 7 ) IT is not the case of the respondent that anyone of the contingencies envisaged by Section 31 (2) has prevented him from making the payment of the amount

Click Here to Read the rest of this document