Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the
Provisions considered
Judgment
The petitioner owned an extent of Ac.0.34 guntas of land situated at Muchimpula Village, Nallabally Mandal, Warangal District. It was acquired by the Government through a notification, dated
28.09.1987 published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. An award was passed fixing the compensation at Rs.9,000/- per acre. On a request made by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Court of II Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Warangal, which was taken up as O.P.No.39 of 1992. The trial Court passed a decree on
30.11.1995 enhancing the compensation to Rs.22,500/- per acre. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal, being A.S.No.474 of 1999, before this Court. The appeal was allowed on
Operative part
20.06.2002, enhancing the compensation to Rs.35,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner filed S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Through its order dated 19.11.2005, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre. This order became final. The petitioners filed E.P.No.301 of 2006 for recovering the enhanced amount of compensation. His grievance is that the respondent have not deposited the amount so far. Heard learned counsel the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. There may have been justification for the respondent in not depositing the enhanced amount of compensation as long as the proceedings were pending before this Court or before the Supreme Court against the decree passed by the civil Court. Once the matter is assumed finality, the respondent is under obligation to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation. Though the decree has to be enforced, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Order 21 C.P.C., the State cannot abdicate liability, to deposit compensation once the property of the petitioner was acquired under a statute for a public purpose. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondent shall deposit the compensation payable under E.P. within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22.03.2011. GJ
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act — s. 4(1); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.