THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.21883 of 2008 Between:
Y. Swami Reddy PETITIONER AND
1. State of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Land Acquisition, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the action of the respondents in not paying the interest on solatium on the compensation awarded to the petitioner for the lands acquired by the respondent for SRBC situated in S.No.518/2 admeasuring Ac.0.45 cents, S.No.543/88 admeasuring Ac.0.88 cents, S.No.551/1A admeasuring Ac.2.22 cents ands.No.577 admeasuring Ac.2.33 cents at Valala Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
[1]
reported in Sunder v. Union of India and Gurpreet Singh v. Union of
[2]
India .
2. Heard Sri Vinay Kamisety, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
3. As per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent herein, the petitioner herein received the compensation under protest; that the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act”) and the enhanced compensation was finally deposited in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur’ and that the petitioner received the entire amount on 26.03.2000 to the full satisfaction and the same was also recorded in the Court records in E.P.No.53 & 95 of 99 on 20.10.2000.
4. Now the only question that arises for consideration of this Court is that whether the petitioner is entitled for interest on solatium on the compensation awarded for the lands acquired by the respondent?
5. This aspect is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble’ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh case (2 supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 54 clearly clarified that – such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions.
6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, WPMPs., if any shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
17th April, 2014 Js.
[1] 2001 (5) ALD 136 (SC)
[2] (2006) 8 SCC 457