THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.3945, 4188, 4244 AND 4329 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: In all these four writ petitions the questions raised and the relief sought for are common. The relief sought for is to satisfy the decrees passed in O.P.Nos.3 of 1985, 13 of 1985, 174 of 1984 dated 15.04.1992 and O.P.No. 12 of 1985 dated 07-07-1992 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. As such all these writ petitions were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this common order. 2. It would suffice for disposal of all the four Writ Petitions if the facts in W.P. No.3945 of 2006 are noted. 3. The petitioner’s land admeasuring Acs.16-95 cents in Survey No.34, of Jillellapadu Village, Alampur Taluq, Mahabubnagar District was acquired for construction of Srisailam Project. An award was passed, aggrieved by which the petitioner sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in O.P. No.3 of 1985. The Civil Court passed its judgment and decree on 15- 04-1992. The petitioner would submit that the decree has attained finality; he initially filed E.P. No.547 of 1995; the said E.P. was dismissed as the office of the judgment debtor was situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Gadwal; a fresh E.P. No.17 of 2003 was filed before the learned Senor Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, wherein a counter was filed stating that, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was not entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the additional market value, and to 30% solatium; and that they had satisfied the decree in full. It is the case of the petitioners that, since the decree has attained finality, they are entitled, in terms of the decree, to 30% solatium, interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date on which possession was taken, and 15% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount; the respondents have not satisfied the decree in full; and, as there has been an inordinate delay in satisfying the decree, they have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, it is stated that the O.P. was disposed of on 07-07-1992 along with other O.Ps., enhancing the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.12,000/- per acre, with solatium at 30% and interest at 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the date of deposit of the decretal amount; aggrieved thereby, the Land Acquisition Officer had preferred an appeal in the High Court, which was disposed of; the decree holder had filed W.P. No.2204 of 1997, which was disposed of on 09-04-1997 with a direction to the respondent to pay the compensation amount in accordance with the decree; he had further filed Contempt Case No.1286 of 1997 for non- compliance of the order of this Court in W.P. No.2204 of 1997 dated 09-04-1997; the Government had sanctioned the decretal amount, vide G.O. Rt.No.837 dated 17-12-1997, and funds were allotted by the Special Collector, Srisailam Project, Kurnool vide proceedings No.B2/402/1993 dated 18-02-1998; accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had deposited the entire decretal amount of Rs.1,20,107/- in the trial Court on 06-03- 1998; and the High Court had closed the contempt case on 16-03-1998. 5. While receipt of the said compensation of Rs.1,20,107/- is not disputed, Sri K.L.N. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would assert that compensation, as required to be paid in terms of the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court, Gadwal, has not been satisfied in its entirety and that E.P. No.17 of 2003 is still pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would submit that the decree has been satisfied in its entirety and this Court, on being satisfied of such payment of compensation, had closed the Contempt Case. 7. It is wholly inappropriate for this Court to adjudicate on the question as to whether or not the decrees in the O.Ps. have been satisfied in its entirety since, admittedly, execution petitions are pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. Having filed an execution petition, the petitioners ought not to have parallely invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies in the execution petition before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, I see no reason to entertain, much less grant the relief sought for in, these writ petitions. 8. These four Writ Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances without costs. ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J January 20, 2011 PV/MR