IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16162 of 2007 Between: Dheeravath Tarya & others. … Petitioners And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads & Buildings Dept, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G. Neeraja Reddy for Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: GP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16162 of 2007 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation in accordance with judgment and decree, dated 28.02.1990, in O.P.No.46 of 1988 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, as confirmed by this Court in judgment, dated 03.12.1996 in A.S.No.259 of 1993, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that the entire compensation amount was paid to the petitioners in terms of the above-noted judgment and decree, but the petitioners have filed E.P.No.52 of 2003 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, for payment of interest on solatium and additional market value. He further submitted that the judgment and decree in the instant case was passed prior to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs Union of India[1] and that the said judgment and decree not having been amended in consonance with the law declared by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not entitled to payment of interest on solatium and additional market value. Inasmuch as the E.P. filed by the petitioners is stated to be pending, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate on this issue. Since respondent No.2 deposited the compensation amount in terms of the judgment and decree obtained by the petitioners, no relief can be granted in this Writ Petition. However, the petitioners can pursue the pending E.P. by raising all legally permissible pleas and it is equally open to the respondents to oppose the said E.P. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 30.07.2007, is vacated and WPMP.No.20545 of 2007 and WVMP.No.2651 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.07.2011 ES [1] (2001) 7 SCC 211