THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8511 of 2007 Dated:11th August, 2010 Between: 1. Thummala Mallam Konda Reddy & Ors. ….Petitioners and 1. The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8511 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 111 in number, seeking Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in paying the compensation to them for the acquired lands as fixed in L.A.O.P.No.1488 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, dated 13.05.1996, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust. 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 24.04.2007. An interim directing has been given to the respondents to deposit the compensation amount to the credit of E.P.No.126 of 1999 vide WPMP No.10925 of 2007 on the even date. The order dated 24.04.2007 passed in WPMP No.10925 of 2007 reads as hereunder: “This case perhaps represents one more illustration of the gross arbitrariness and indefensible conduct of the State. The petitioners are 111 in number. Some of them claim to be legal representatives of others. Those of the petitioners who are the original land owners of agricultural lands and others who are legal representatives of such original land owners had their lands in Pattapurai Village, Siddout Taluk, Kadapa District subject to acquisition for the execution of the Somasila Project in Nellore District, since the entire village was identified as subject to inundation on account of the Project. The State exercising powers under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) proposed acquisition of Ac.192.47 cents of agricultural land including the structures, wells and trees etc. thereon in Sy.No.2/1A to Sy.No.70 in Reach No.1 of the Village. A draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was thereafter notified and eventually an award dated 24.12.1979 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the market value determined in the award, the petitioners and other claimants sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. References were duly made and the LAOPs were considered by the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet. In so far as the petitioners or the predecessors in title are concerned, the reference was in O.P.No.1488 of 1988. The reference court, by the order dated 13.5.1996 re-determined the market value and directed payment of compensation accordingly. According to the petitioners, the State had not preferred an appeal against the award/order dated 13.5.1996 of the reference court in O.P.No.1488 of 1988. The award has thus become final. Earlier, E.P.No.126 of 1999 filed by and on behalf of the petitioners was rejected by the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet on the ground that no funds were available with the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a revision in C.R.P.No.250 of 2002. By the order dated 8.3.2002 this Court allowed the revision and reiterated the principle that the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners can be recovered by way of attachment of any Government property. Even thereafter E.P.No.126 of 1999 is being time and again adjourned by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet on account of the absence of funds. In the circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court. In view of the finality of the decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, in O.P.No.1488 of 1988, the liability of the State under the said decree is a charge on the consolidated fund of the State under Article 202 of the Constitution of India. Such charged amount ought to have been reckoned for computation in the Annual Financial Statement since the financial year 1997 and since the liability is a charge, ought to have constituted a part of the Annual Financial Statement placed by the State Government before the Legislature. In view of the provisions of Article 204(2) of the Constitution even the Legislature does not have the power to propose an amendment which will have the effect of varying the amount or altering the destination of any grant made in respect of the Annual Financial Statement. There is thus no escape from the constitutional obligation of the State’s liability to pay and deposit the due amounts. Yet and with resistant delinquency, the State has declined to honour its constitutional obligation. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents shall forthwith, and at any rate within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, deposit the entirety of the compensation amount due and payable to the petitioners under the award dated 13.5.1996 in O.P.No.1488 of 1988 of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, to the credit of E.P.No.126 of 1999. The respondents shall also file a computation memorandum disclosing how the amount of compensation, which has been deposited, has been arrived at, into the executing court within the aforesaid time. Notice.” 3. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition reports that the respondents have filed an appeal assailing the order dated 13.05.1996 passed in O.P.No.1488 of 1988 and obtained interim stay subject to deposit of 50% of the compensation. A further submission has been made that the respondents have already deposited the substantial amount in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court. 4. The factual aspect of the deposit of substantial amount is not contradicted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in this Writ Petition for adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as redundant. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11th August, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8511 of 2007 Dated:11th August, 2010