IMPORTANT POINTS
A writ of mandamus can be issued even where there exists an alternative remedy by way of filing of an execution petition. It may be true that by payment of compensation no favour is shown to the awardees but the amount of compensation must be realised also in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the judgment dated 08.08.2019 in WP(C) No. 21720 of 2019, by which the writ court, while disposing of the writ petition, observed that if the public official acts with lethargy to delay the process of execution, the court can invoke public law remedy by directing authority to provide necessary funds, directed the 2nd respondent to provide necessary funds within a time limit to enable the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the same before the civil court.

2. Judgment dated 08.08.2019 in WP(C) No.21720 of 2019 is reproduced hereunder:

“The petitioners are claimants in land acquisition proceedings. According to them, compensation amount was enhanced. The requisition was on behalf of the second respondent-Corporation of Kochi. It is also submitted that there is no appeal pending. However, the execution petitions filed by the petitioners are stated to be pending. The petitioners further submitted that since the second respondent failed to provide necessary funds, the Land Acquisition Officer did not deposit the enhanced compensation amount. 2. This Court in several judgments had taken the view that such compensation amount shall be deposited within three months. It may be true that the petitioners had filed execution petitions and thus, had already invoked one of the remedies before the civil court. But it is to be noted that public authority cannot act in an arbitrary manner to deny justice to ordinary citizens and to prevent them from enjoying the fruits of a decree of the civil court by citing lame excuses. That cannot Wpc 21720/2019 -:4:-be the moto of a welfare State. It is the responsibility of the Government or the public authority to disburse such amount to the citizen whose property has been acquired. Further, access to justice means serving justice in real terms to the citizens for enjoyment of a decree obtained through a civil court. If public official act with lethargy to delay the process of execution, the court can invoke public law remedy by directing authority to provide necessary funds. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to provide necessary funds within three months, to enable the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the same before the civil court. The writ petition is disposed with the above directions.”

3. Assailing the correctness of the said judgment, Corporation of Kochi, represented by the Secretary, has raised the following grounds:

“B. Article 226 of the Constitution is not a tool to over ride the statutory remedy and therefore, the Learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the Writ Petition (Civil).

C. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that, there is no circumstance warranting the application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the above case.

D. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that, the issuance of Writ of Mandamus will nullify the execution proceedings and it is against the object of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

E. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the decree is executable under Order XXI of the CPC and as the petitioners have already exhausted the said remedy prescribed by Law, there is no circumstance warranting the invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

F. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that at the maximum, this Honourable Court is justified in directing speedy disposal of the execution petition already filed by the petitioners before the execution court and the interference of this Honourable Court under Article 226 is not at all justified in any circumstances.

G. The learned Single Judge went wrong in directing a public institution to deposit the award amount within a period of 3 months, since the availability of the fund for the said purpose depends on various factors and therefore at least ought to have heard the 1st respondent before issuing a writ of mandamus.”

4. Sri