B LINGA REDDY Vs. R D O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition seeksa relief to pay the compensation in accordance with the Judgment and Decree rendered on 24-12-1983 in O.P. No.280 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar.

(2.) A preliminary objection is projected by the learned Government Pleader on the ground that when a Judgmentand Decree has been rendered by the Civil Court, the same has to be executed in the Civil Court as provided by several Rules under Order21C.P.C, and that this writ perition is not maintainable. May be the said objection is tenable so far as the ordinary suits are concerned. But, in a case concerning deprivation of a person's property, it can be done only by due process of law and not otherwise. After the 44th Constitution Amendment Act, 1978, which came into force from 20-6-1979, the said fundamental right was transformed as a constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution. The lands, in the instant case, were acquired in the year 1977 by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') followed by draft declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. The lands were acquired for the public purpose of reconstructing F.T.I, tank-bed pursuant to the requisition of the Executive Engineer, PWD ID Division, Karimnagar dated 25-3-1977. After award enquiry, the Award was passed on 15-1-1979. As on that day, Article 31 was in the Constitution Book and was deleted with effect from 20-6-1979, but again was transformed as a constitutional guarantee. For ensuring that a person is not deprived of his property, save by authority of law, it does not matter as to whether it is fundamental right or the constitutional guarantee as in either case, the state or any other authority cannot deprive any person of his property otherwise than due process of law. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended from time to time, the latest amendment being by Central Act 68 of 1984 is such an Act, which empowers the Government to acquire the lands of a person. The said Act vests the authorities of the State to take over a person's property for public purpose, but with corresponding obligation to pay the compensation in lieu thereof. The said obligation is not discharged merely because proceedings have been initiated under the provisionsof the Land Acquisition Act and by following the procedure prescribed thereunder a person has been dispossessed. If the compensation is not paid after such acquisition and dispossession, pursuant to the said acquisition the fundamental right either to available under Article 3l of the Indian Constitution or the constitutional guarantee, which is now provided under Article 300-A of the Constitution will get violated. The right to acquire a person's property under the Land Acquisition Act is coupled witha duty to pay compensation and it is implied in the said duty that the said compensation payable should be paid as expeditiously as possible. If there is either failure to pay compensation or if there is an abnormal delay in payment of compensation, there will be violation of fundamental right, which was either to available under Article31 of the Indian Constitution and constitutional guarantee, which is now available under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and whenever such a violation is pointed out, a Constitutional Court like this, cannot be a silent spectator and has to step in to issue a writ to set the things right and to remedy the situation so that the Constitutional obligation of the Government is duly discharged. No fetters can be placed on the powers of this Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The mere fact that remedy is available by way of execution petition under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, shall not prevent a Constitutional Court if a situation of this nature arises to exercise the powers of writ jurisdiction. By the by, what is available in execution in a decree against the Government? It is only rickety chairs and tables, which cannot satisfy even a fraction of the decree and in fact several such decrees will be pending so also attachments after attachments. That will not serve the real purpose and effectual justice is not done by following that technical procedure. Courts are not sitting for doing technical justice in just following the procedure. Steps have to be taken to do effectual justice. In execution proceedings for failure to discharge the decree, a power vests in the Civil Court to detain the judgment-debtor in civil prison till the decree is discharged. But, in the instant case, against a Governmental decree, who is to be put in prison? It cannot be an Officer, who is presently holding the post of a Land Acquisition Officer. It is certainly impossible to trace a person in a case like this to put him in civil prison. See the plight of the petitioner and the other land holders, who have been deprived of their possession way back in the year 1979 and a meagre compensation was awarded and on reference under Section 18 of the Act, a decree was passed by the competent Civil Court on 24-12-1983 and even after a lapse of more than 11 years, the said decree still stands undischarged. The object and intendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is a law empowering the authorities to divest a person of his property for public purpose by compensating him in terms of money, is to see that the person depriving of his property for public purpose should be paid money at the earliest possible time so as to rehabilitate him by enabling him to purchase alternative property or invest otherwise. If that is not done, certainly the due process of law is violated. The due process of law is not to be taken just as a technical observance of the rules of procedure, but should be taken to effectively compensate the person. It can be done by determining and paying the compensation amount at the earliest possible time, more so in this country where the prices had been rising by leaps and bounds and can by any stretch of imagination, the petitioner and the like, who were deprived of the lands in the year 1979 by sacrificing their individual cause for a public cause, purchase such a similarly situated property which they have lost and for the consideration amount they get now, pursuant to this order, that too after 16 years of losing their land. One can guess what was the money value in the year 1979 when the petitioner lost his property and due to merculiar inflation what is the value of money as on this day. By such an abnormal delay, the fundamental right hitherto guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution of India and the constitutional guarantee, which is now available under Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution, has been grossly violated and as such I issue a writ making the rule absolute directing the respondents herein, who are the acquisitioning and requisitioning authorities to discharge the liability in Decree dated 24-12- 1983 in O.P. No.280 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without fail.

(3.) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs.