THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3707 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners, through their predecessors, were the owners of Ac.17.12 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.20, 57 and 58, of Kanchanbagh Village, Hyderabad District. That land, along with certain other extents, was requisitioned by the Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad, the 3rd respondent, way back in the year 1978, for establishing Defence Research and Development Laboratories. Steps in the direction of payment of compensation were not taken, for quite some time. On 22-01-1985, a notice under Form-J, appended to the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued, requiring the petitioners to explain as to why the said property be not acquired, under Section 7(1) of the Act. At the relevant point of time, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC Act’), was in force. Therefore, the 3rd respondent approached the Government of Andhra Pradesh, entertaining a doubt, as to whether it is necessary to pay any compensation, at all. G.O.Ms.No.153, Revenue (UCI) Department, was issued on 05-02-1991, according permission to proceed with the matter. The petitioners filed W.P.No.5400 of 1992, with a prayer to quash the proceedings under the Act, on the ground that compensation was not paid, though much time has elapsed from the date of notice. The writ petition was allowed on 24-06-1994, leaving it open to the 1st respondent to acquire the land by initiating fresh proceedings under the Act, and the order has become final. A fresh notification in Form-J, under Section 7(1) of the Act was issued on 20-05-1995. There was some hurdle for proceeding further, since the petitioners suffered proceedings under the ULC Act. However, with the repealing of the Act, with effect from 27-03-2008, in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the hurdle stood removed. It is not necessary to refer to various proceedings, that ensued in this regard. Suffice it to say that the District Collector, Hyderabad, the 4th respondent herein, who was designated by the 1st respondent, as the authority to determine the compensation, passed an order dated 01-12-2009, determining the compensation at Rs.350/- per sq. yard, totalling to Rs.4,83,07,624/-. Out of that, a sum of Rs.2,55,54,720/- was paid. The grievance of the petitioners is that the balance of the compensation was not paid, so far. It is also stated that the petitioners received the compensation under protest, and sought reference of the matter to arbitration, under Section 8(2) of the Act. Their grievance is that the respondents have not paid the balance, and that the matter was not referred to Arbitrator. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, a brief counter-affidavit is filed. The fact that the 4th respondent determined the compensation, and that a sum of Rs.2,55,55,720/- was paid; is not disputed. It is stated that the balance of compensation would be paid, as soon as it is released by the 1st respondent. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. S. Nanda, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.4. It took more than 30 years for the respondents to conclude the proceedings, that were initiated under the Act, vis-à-vis the land of the petitioners. It was only in the recent past, that part of the compensation was paid. The 3rd respondent has addressed letter dated 16-02-2010 to the 1st respondent to arrange for release of Rs.2,81,20,429/-. Any delay would be detrimental not only to the interest of the petitioners, but also to the respondents. The additional amount in the form of interest or other benefits would have to be paid. The petitioners parted with the land, 30 years ago, and there cannot be any justification to withhold the compensation any longer, once the 4th respondent has determined the market value. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents 1 to 3 shall arrange for payment of balance of compensation to the petitioners, within a period of three months from today. The 4th respondent, in turn, shall take necessary steps, for reference of the matter to arbitration. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.28-02-2011. KO