P POTHANNA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioners are owners of Agricultural land comprised in Sy. No.262/20 of Madhuravada (v), Chinagadila Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. An extent of Ac.5.66 cts was acquired for sites and services under L.E.D. Scheme for VUDA under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4 declaration was published in A.P. Gazette - Part I Extraordinary Issue No.226 dated 2-5-1984 and draft declaration under Section 6 was published on 29-4-1987. The petitioner questioned the validity of the said acquisition and filed W.P.No.12320 of 1988 which was dismissed on 21-12-1991 and an appeal preferred against the same W.A.No.52 of 1992 was also dismissed on 5-2-1992 and a Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. The petitioner also filed another W.P.No.4134 of 1993 which was dismissed on 16-7-1993. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, an Award No.20 of 1988 dated 27-7-1988 was passed by the 1st respondent and the compensation amount of about Rs.4,00,259.16 ps. was deposited into the Treasury as the petitioners did not consent to receive the compensation awarded. After disposal of the writ petitions, the petitioner applied for payment of compensation and the same was duly paid by Demand Draft pursuant to the orders passed by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.114/87-R1 dated 9-9-1993. Each of the petitioners were paid Rs.2,00,129.58 paise by Demand Drafts by the District Treasury Officer. The petitioner's request for payment of interest from the date of taking possession i.e., 4-3-1992 till 13-9-1993 i.e., the date of payment of compensation not having been considered by the respondents, the above writ petition is filed for directions as to payment of interest for the said period.

(3.) The facts are not in dispute. In view of the narrow controversy, the facts relevant in the instant case are that the possession of the land in question was taken from the petitioners on 4-3-1992 and the compensation amount was paid to the petitioners on 13-9-1993. The 1st respondent had deposited the compensation amount payable to each of the petitioners in the State Treasury vide Challan Nos.242/101 and 241/101 dated 11-2-1992 for the reason that the petitioners abstained from receiving the amount.