IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17537 of 2005 Between: Venkateshwar Reddy and eight others. … Petitioners And The Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector, P.J.P., Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Buchaiah Goud. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to deposit the compensation payable to the petitioners to the credit of E.P.No.67 of 2002 and batch in O.P.No.143 of 1991 and batch on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. Heard Sri G.Buchaiah Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In respect of the lands of the petitioners, references were made to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gadwal, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). The said references were answered by judgment and decree dated 20-10-1995 in O.P.No.143 of 1991 and batch. It is not in dispute that the said judgment has become final having been affirmed by the High Court and with the dismissal of the SLPs., by the Supreme Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the judgment of the civil Court attaining finality, the respondents have not deposited a part of compensation payable to them, in particular, interest on solatium and additional market value. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer, Land Acquisition Unit, Priyadarsini Jurala Project, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, it is admitted that the judgment of the civil Court has become final. It is averred that after the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.23235 of 1996 and Contempt Case No.294 of 1999, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.25, dated 6-1-2000 according sanction for payment of Rs.24,88,390/- towards decretal amount in respect of the above mentioned batch; that the Special Deputy Collector has deposited the same in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, to the credit of O.P.No.143 of 1991 and batch, on 31-3-2000; and that the said deposit was made after duly calculating the amount in terms of the decrees passed in the said batch. At the hearing learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have not deposited the interest on solatium and additional market value. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that since the judgment and decree in the said batch did not specifically contain a direction to pay interest on solatium and additional market value, the petitioners are not entitled to interest thereon. Sri G.Buchaiah Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder V. Union of India(1), argued that in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the operative portion of the judgment of the civil Court in O.P.No.143 of 1991 and batch the reference was answered in the following terms: (i) The market value of the acquired lands of Categories I & II (treating them into one category) is enhanced and fixed the same at Rs.45,000/- per acre; (ii) The market value of the acquired lands of Category-III is enhanced and fixed the same at Rs.30,000/- per acre; (iii) The claimants shall be entitled to additional market value of 12% p.a. from the date of draft notification to the date of award or taking possession whichever is earlier; (iv) The claimants shall be entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced market value; (v) The claimants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced Compensation at 9% p.a. for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% p.a., till the same is paid to the claimants or deposited into Court; (vi) The claimants shall also be entitled to costs including advocate fee of Rs.3,000 (one set for all batch O.Ps.) which the respondent shall pay”. Today, along with this Writ Petition, Writ Petition No.18596 of 2005 is also taken up for hearing. The said case relates to O.P No.232 of 1994 and batch, which was disposed of by the same Court on 26-3-1996, in the following terms: (i) The market value of the acquired lands is enhanced and fixed the same at Rs.50/- per sq. yard i.e., value fixed at Rs.75/- per sq. yard, less 1/3rd area value Rs.25/-, which comes to Rs.50/- per square yard. (ii) Additional Market value at 12% per annum on the enhanced market value of the acquired lands is awarded from the date of notification u/s.4(1) of the Act to the date of passing award or taking possession whichever is earlier. (iii) Solatium at 30% on the enhanced market value of the acquired lands is awarded. (iv) Interest on the enhanced compensation at 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the acquired lands, and thereafter at 15% per annum till the same is paid to the claimants or deposited into the Court, is awarded. (v) Costs including advocate’s fee of Rs.3000/- (one set in batch Ops) is awarded which the respondent shall pay”. A comparison of the judgments and decrees between the two cases shows that the same terms, on which the reference was answered in this case, have been contained in the judgment and decree of the civil Court in O.P.No.232 of 1994 and batch. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, stated that in Writ Petition No.18596 of 2005 the respondents have deposited interest on solatium and additional market value and placed before this Court letter dated 30-6-2008 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, addressed to the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, wherein the said information was furnished. I fail to understand how the respondents interpreted the judgments and decrees of the civil Court passed in identical terms in a different manner. If the respondents have not seen any ambiguity in the judgment and decree of the civil Court in the O.Ps., which are subject matter of Writ Petition 18596 of 2005, there could be no reason for them to see any such ambiguity in the judgment and decree of the other batch, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition. In the face of the admission of the respondents that they have interpreted and understood the judgment of the civil Court in O.P.No.232 of 1994 and batch as having fastened the liability of interest on the solatium and additional market value on the respondents, they cannot be permitted to raise a different contention in the batch of cases, which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to deposit the interest on solatium and additional market value to the credit of E.P.No.67 of 2002 and batch in O.P.No.143 of 1991 and batch on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ------------------------------------- --- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03-07-2008 MNR (1) 2001 (7) Supreme 37