IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.12504 of 2002 Between: Sadaram Visweswara Rao and others. … Petitioners And: The Special Deputy Collector (Land Protection), Visakhapatnam. … Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioners: None Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notices, dated 1-6-2002, issued by the respondent, whereby he directed the petitioners to collect the banker cheques from the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam. There was a dispute regarding a piece of land admeasuring Ac.0.92 cents situated in Kancharapalem village, coming under the limits of the then Visakhapatnam Municipality. LGC No.109 of 1989 was registered against the petitioners before the special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. By order dated 4-4-1984 the special Court declared the petitioners as land grabbers. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.9906 of 1994. This Court by order, dated 17-1-1996, while confirming the order of the special Court, directed the petitioners to remit the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.250/- per square yard within three months from the date of that order, in lieu of their eviction. This Court stipulated the condition that if such payment is not made, the petitioners shall be evicted from the land in question, as ordered by the special Court. The time granted by this Court was subsequently extended upto 2-9-1996. Petitioner No.1 sent a cheque dated 2-9-1996 for Rs.1,62,434/- and petitioner No.3 sent a cheque on the same day for Rs.3,24,867/-. Both the cheques, which were evidently received by the respondent after expiry of the extended time, were dishonoured. However, petitioner No.1 sent another cheque, dated 10-11-1997, which was received by the office of the Collector on 12-11-1997 for the sum of Rs.1,62,450/-. Petitioner No.3 also sent another cheques, dated 29-1-1997 for Rs.3,24,880/-. In addition to these cheques, the petitioners sent separate pay orders for other amounts. All these amounts were received by the office of the respondent and were retained with them till the impugned notices were issued, wherein the petitioners have been called upon to take back the amounts sent through banker’s cheques on the ground that they failed to pay the amounts within the time stipulated by this Court. The respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. The substance of the counter-affidavit is to the effect that as the petitioners failed to pay the amounts within the time stipulated by this Court, the amounts were sought to be returned. Admittedly, the petitioners failed to pay a part of the amounts within the time stipulated by this Court. The fact, however, remains that the amounts were received by the respondent without any demur and were retained for more than five years. It is only thereafter, that the respondent has suddenly woken up to realize that the petitioners failed to make payments within the time stipulated by this Court. Neither the impugned notices, nor the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent had given any explanation for receiving the cheques submitted belatedly and for not returning the cheques, even if they were received by mistake, within a reasonable time. Though, technically, the petitioners failed to comply with the condition imposed by this Court, with regard to the time within which the payment was to be made, the respondent had received the said amount paid by way of banker cheques/pay orders. In the face of this undeniable fact, the far too belated action of the respondent in seeking to return the amount is wholly arbitrary and irrational. Had the respondent been prompt enough, he would not have either received the cheques or returned the same within a reasonable time. Having not done so, the respondent cannot be permitted to reopen the issue after passage of substantial time. The petitioners have eventually complied with the order of this Court by paying the entire amount towards compensation for the value of the land belonging to the Government and permitted to be retained by them. In this view of the matter, manifest injustice will be caused to the petitioners if the settled rights are allowed to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notices are quashed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-12-2009 MNR