Learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition seeks

following prayer:

1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the

order as per Annexure-D dated 27.09.2022 passed

by the Member, Prl.MACT, Bengaluru in MVC

No.4961/2013 on the application of the petitioner file

u/s 151 of CPC as per Annexure-C and thereby

allow the application filed by the petitioner produced

as per Annexure-C in MVC No.4961/2013 on the file

of learned Member, Prl.MACT, Bengaluru:

2. Issue any appropriate writ or order or direction as

this Hon'ble Court finds it appropriate in the admitted

facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of

justice;

3. Award the cost of this proceeding.

Learned AGA submits that the issue in the lis stands

covered by judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench in

WP No.20785/2021 disposed on 23.11.2021.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would also

accept that the issue stands covered by the judgment of

the co-ordinate Bench. The co-ordinate Bench in the

aforesaid petition has held as follows:

"3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the petition papers, this

Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for

the following reasons:

- 3 -

a) The stipulation as to a portion of the compensation

amount being parked in a Fixed Deposit has an

underlying philosophy namely, i.e., the entire amount

if given to the claimants in terms of the award

unconditionally, the corpus may be last because of

imprudent investments or expenditures; such things

more often than not do happen where parties are

illiterates, and lack the prudent decision making;

however, stipulating such a condition of such

stipulation cannot be considered as ever mandatory

in every award; Court can presume the prudence of

persons and that it is for them to decide what they

should do with their money which is their property,

subject to all just exceptions as rightly argued by

learned counsel for the petitioner.

b) Petitioner’s counsel is more than justified in

banking upon the decision of the Apex Court in

A.V.PADMA Vs. R. VENUGOPAL & OTHERS, (2012)

3. SCC 378, wherein para 4 reads as under:

“In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this

Court issued certain guidelines in order to

"safeguard the feed from being frittered away

by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy

and susceptibility to exploitation". Even as per

the guidelines issued by this Court, long term

fixed deposit of amount of compensation is

mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate

claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate

claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider

the request for lumpsum payment for effecting

purchase of any movable property such as

agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn

a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal

shall make sure that the amount is actually

spent for the purpose and the demand is not a

ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-

illiterate

claimants,

the

Tribunal

should

ordinarily invest the amount of compensation

- 4 -

in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is

satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing

that the whole or part of the amount is required

for expanding an existing business or for

purchasing some property for earning

a

livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole

or part of the amount of compensation to the

claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that

the amount is invested for the purpose for

which it is demanded and paid. In the case of

literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest

the amount of compensation in long term fixed

deposit. The expression used in guideline No.

(iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of

literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to

the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i),

whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and

(v), the expression used is that the Tribunal

should. Moreover, in the case of literate

persons, the Tribunal may resort to the

procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if,

hav