ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in depositing the decreetal amount to the credit of E.P. No.88 of 2019 in L.A.O.P. No.5 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, has stated that the official respondents are taking necessary steps to deposit the amounts and that as and when the amounts are received, the authorities will deposit the compensation amount.

As can be seen from the record, the notification under Section 4 (1) the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued way back on 28.05.1987 and the Award was passed on 21.06.1988. Subsequently, the compensation amount was enhanced, by virtue of the order and decree, dated 31.10.2017 passed in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, and the said order has become final as no appeal was preferred questioning the same.

Having regard to the above backdrop of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the authorities cannot take their own time to deposit the amounts which are already enhanced by the competent Court. The inaction of the respondents in paying the enhanced compensation amounts in time to the petitioners, who are already suffering from the loss of their lands, would make them to also suffer untold hardship and misery and run from pillar to post for getting the enhanced compensation deposited and incur expenses for the same. They will also have to incur additional expenditure for approaching the Court for seeking the required relief. With the raising inflation, the value of the money will also go down and the delayed payment of the enhanced compensation will result in the compensation amount itself losing all the charm and utility. If the petitioners or similarly situated persons receive the enhanced compensation within the time, they will be in a position to use that amount in some other investments and get some returns over the same.

Further, in Bhimidipati Annapoorna Bhavani v. Land Acquisition Officer1, while dealing with similar issue, the Larger Bench of this Court has held as under: (cid:147)One of the self-imposed restrictions is that High Court generally refrains from entertaining a writ petition when there is adequate and efficacious alternate remedy available to a party, and, when such alternate remedy available is a statutory remedy, such statutory remedy has been duly exhausted. Availability of such alternate and efficacious or statutory remedy itself is not a bar in entertaining a writ petition in the given facts and circumstances. We need not multiply the circumstances in which such discretionary power may be exercised by the Court in such matters despite availability of such alternate, adequate and efficacious remedy. But the limits as notice in B.Govinda Reddy(cid:146)s case supra by a learned Single Judge of this Court are sufficient that in cases arising out of the Act where the amount of compensation, finally determined has not been paid, a person must first resort to the alternate efficacious remedy of taking out execution and when despite taking out execution proceedings, if there is any delay caused on the part of authorities, resort can be had to filing of a writ petition in this Court and, this Court, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, in appropriate cases, may issue directions for immediate deposit of the amount of compensation by the State Government or the authorities on whose behalf the land has been acquired.(cid:148)

For the afore-stated reasons and the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court in the above referred judgment, the official respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation