THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Dated this the 24th day of September 2009. WRIT PETITION No. 17382 of 2009. Between: 1.Thokala Lakshmaiah and 11 others. ……… Petitioners. Vs. The Government of A.P. rep by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyderabad and two others. ……..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 17382 of 2009. ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The lands of the petitioners (House sites) in Kistapuram h/o: Chintiryala village, Mellahceruvu mandal, Nalgonda District were acquired by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for the purpose of the Pulichintala Project. Notices of Award enquiry under Section 12(2) of the Act were also issued wherein 10% of the award amount is proposed to be deducted towards income tax. Aggrieved by the proposal of the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of W.P.No. 3934 of 1989 on.13.12.1995 in which a similar relief as sought in this writ petition was sought, directing the petitioner therein to comply with the provisions of Sub-section (1A) of Section 197-A of the Income Tax Act; directing the petitioner to furnish particulars in Form 15H for the purpose of Sub- section (1A) of Section 197-A of the Income Tax Act before the Land Acquisition Officer; and directing that the Land Acquisition Officer, on being satisfied that necessary particulars are furnished should file a Memo before the reference Court to the effect that in view of the declarations furnished by the petitioner, the tax deduction under Section 194-A of the Act need not be effected and that the amount representing the interest payable on enhanced compensation could be disbursed to the parties concerned without any deduction. Similar view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 6543 of 2001 dt. 12.4.2001, reiterated by another Division Bench in the order dt. 30.8.2005 in W.P.No. 19025 of 2005. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Tax do not dispute that precedents above apply to the facts of this writ petition. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the Judgments referred to above. No order as to costs. The petitioners shall furnish the particulars in Form 15H before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent, on being satisfied as to the correctness of the particulars furnished, shall take an appropriate view including for not deducting the tax at source, as required under Section 194-A of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent had already deducted tax in respect of some of the petitioners but had not yet credited the same to the Income Tax Department. If that be the case, the 3rd respondent shall refund the amount of Income Tax deducted and retained, to the petitioners on the petitioners furnishing particulars in Form 15H. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 24.9.2009. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 17382 of 2009. Dated: 24.9.2009.