THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.23443 and 23447 of 2010 Dated 22nd November, 2011 Between: Varikunta Gangi Setty and others …Petitioners (W.P.No.23443 of 2010) And The Special Dy.Collector (LA) T.G.P.Unit-II, Podalkur, Kadapa and others …Respondents (W.P.No.23443 of 2010) Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Boya Ravinder Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Irrigation & CAD The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to deposit interest on solatium and additional market value in terms of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as per the judgment of the civil Court which was confirmed by this Court. The structures of the petitioners were acquired for construction of Somasila Project and awards were passed in the year 1997. Dissatisfied with the compensation fixed for the structures by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners got the disputes referred to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. References were disposed of by the Principal District Judge, Kadapa in the year 2002. Feeling aggrieved by the said awards of the civil Court, the respondents filed first appeals before this Court which were disposed of in the year 2006 reducing the compensation by 20%. While modifying the award of the civil Court, the Division Bench awarded statutory benefits, such as, solatium, additional market value and interest thereon. The grievance of the petitioners is that payment of interest by the respondents is confined only to the market value, excluding solatium and additional market value, on the ground that their counsel addressed letters, dated 31.08.2006, to respondent No.2, stating that they are agreeable to receive compensation with interest at 9% and 15% on the market value for the first and subsequent years respectively. The petitioners pleaded that they have never waived their right to receive interest on solatium and additional market value. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that as per the letter addressed by the petitioners’ counsel, the respondents have deposited compensation amount on 30.10.2006 and the petitioners have received compensation by filing full satisfaction memos by restricting the interest at 9% and 15% only on the enhanced market value. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader has filed copies of full satisfaction memos in support of this plea. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India[1], the petitioners are entitled to payment of interest on additional market value and solatium also and that even as per the decree of the Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that the petitioners are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on solatium and additional market value. The learned counsel submitted that even a reading of the letter addressed by the petitioners’ counsel does not show that he has waived the right of the petitioners to claim interest on additional market value and solatium. In my opinion, the issues raised by the petitioners need to be adjudicated by the civil Court, if the same are raised by them, because several contentious issues arise for consideration, such as, whether they have waived their right to receive the interest on solatium and additional market value and whether full satisfaction memos were filed by them and if so, such satisfaction has been recorded by the District Court. After all, the petitioners eventually have to seek execution of the judgment and decree of the reference Court as modified by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, in ordinary course, the appropriate remedy for them is to seek execution of those judgments and decrees through normal process of filing execution petitions. Hence, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy for such reliefs. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of without adjudicating the case on merits with liberty to the petitioners to file execution petitions before the reference Court. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, all the interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd November, 2011 VGB [1] (2001) 7 SCC 211