THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30333 of 2010 April 11, 2011 Between: K.Siva Lingam Naidu, S/o.Linganna And others … Petitioners And The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO, Nandyal, Kurnool District And others ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30333 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The relief sought for, in this writ petition is to direct the respondents not to deduct any amount towards income-tax from the compensation payable to the petitioners in terms of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.3261, 3270 and 3271 of 2004, dated 09.4.2009. The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired the petitioners’ land for the purpose of construction of a market yard. The award was passed by the first respondent granting compensation at ` 8,000/- per acre. The reference court, by order dated 30.4.2004, enhanced the compensation from ` 8,000/- to ` 1,83,000/- per acre. The first respondent preferred an appeal to this Court which was dismissed by judgment and decree in A.S.No.3261, 3270 and 3271 of 2004, dated 09.4.2009. Apprehending that the first respondent, while depositing compensation to satisfy the decree, would deduct income- tax at 11.2% at source the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Counsel would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bikram Singh v Land Acquisition Collector[1] whereunder the interest received was required to be spread over. However Parliament has substituted clause (b) to Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Finance Act, 2009 with effect from 01.4.2010 and, under clause (b) thereof, interest received by an assessee on compensation or on enhanced compensation, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the income of the year in which it is received. In the light of the amendment, the action of the first respondent in seeking to deduct tax at 11.2% at source cannot be faulted. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would seek liberty to file a writ petition afresh challenging the vires of Section 145A(b) of the Act. Granting liberty to do so, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) April 11, 2011 YS [1] (1997) 224 ITR 551 (SC) : (1997) 10 SCC 243