C. Narsimha Chary & Ors. v. NONE

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondents in not releasing /disbursing the compensation and other statutory benefits as per the award dated 29-7-1995 in File No. A/764/C/1/71 as revised in CRP No. 6432 if 2004 dated 20-9-2007 and as confirmed in SLP (Civil) CC No. 9906 of 2008 dated 1-8-2008, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to disburse /pay the compensation forthwith and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.V.SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : O R D E R : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 10 in number, assailing the action of respondents in not releasing/disbursing the compensation and other statutory benefits as per the Award, dated 29.07.1995, in File No.A/764/C/1/71 as revised in C.R.P.No.6432 of 2004, dated 20.09.2007, and as confirmed in SLP (Civil) CC No.9906 of 2008, dated 01.08.2008.

2. The petitioners are absolute owners of 809.08 acres of land in Survey Nos.6, 17/1 and 17/2 of Anjanagiri Village, Wanaparthy Taluq, Mahabubnagar District. The respondents acquired the land of the petitioners for proposed reserve forest by issuing notification in the year 1950 under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act. An Award came to be passed in File No.A/764/C/1/71, on 29.07.1995. The respondents filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar vide F.A.No.1 of 1995. In the appeal, compensation came to be reduced from Rs.1,650/- per acre to Rs.700/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed C.R.P.No.6432 of 2004. The said CRP came to be allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.700/- per acre to Rs.1,000/- per acre. The respondents carried the matter to the Supreme Court unsuccessfully. The S.L.P. (Civil) CC No.9906 of 2008 filed by the respondents came to be dismissed on

01.08.2008. Though the respondents acquired the land of the petitioners under Award dated 02.07.1995, they did not pay the compensation. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. When the Writ Petition came up for admission before this Court on

24.10.2008, learned Government Pleader for Forests received notice on behalf of the respondents and sought time for filing counter-affidavit. So far no counter-affidavit has been filed.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents having acquired land under the Award dated

29.07.1995 did not choose to pay the compensation to the petitioners. In support of his contention that writ petition is maintainable, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Bhimidipati Annapoorna Bhavani v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapuram & Ors. [1] , wherein it has been held as hereunder: “25. Article 226 of the Constitution confers on all the High Courts very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs of the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, writ of certiorari for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purposes. Under the first part, a writ may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution only after a decision that the aggrieved party has a fundamental right and that it has been infringed. Under the second part it may be issued only after finding that the aggrieved party has a legal right which entitles him to any of the aforesaid writs and that such right has been infringed. Reference in this regard may be had to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rashid, K.S. v. Income-Tax Investigation Commissioner, AIR 1954 sc 207, State of Orissa v. Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12, Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1962 SC 1044 and K.Venkatachalam v. A.Swamickan (1999) 4 SCC 526: (AIR 1999 SC 1723). The above discussion would lead us to hold that the power, which the High Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution, is a discretionary power. Though the power is discretionary and no limits can be placed upon such discretion, it has been held judicially that power must be exercised along recognized lines and not arbitrarily. There are no limits to such power and has to be exercised judiciously. However, while exercising this power Courts have imposed certain limits in exercise of those powers, which are known as self-imposed limitations. 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 noticed in B.Govinda Reddy’s case (1997(5) Andh. LT 561) (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.”

6. The factual aspect that the respondents acquired the land of the petitioners is not in dispute and the matter reached finality with the disposal of the SLP filed by the respondents.

7. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents to pay the compensation as ordered by this Court in CRP No.6432 of 2004, dated 20.09.2007, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:12th December, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] AIR 2005 ANDHRA PRADESH 365