(1) Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the enhanced compensation strictly in accordance with the seniority of the decree, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently seek a direction to the respondents to pay the amount of compensation as per the order dated 26 - 4 - 1990 in o. P. No. 42 of 1985 and batch on the file of the subordinate judge's court, gadwal.

(2) Lands of the petitioners in s. Nos. 57, 69, 82, etc. , of nandimalla village, atmakur mandal in kurnool district were acquired for the purpose of constructing earth dam pjp left bank of nandimalla village. Pursuant to acquisition, notification under section 4 (1) of the land acquisition act (for short 'the act') was issued on 26 - 9 - 1981. Respondent no. 1 passed award on 31 - 8 - 1982 fixing compensation at the rate of rs. 2,000/ - and rs. 3,000/ - per acre for dry lands and rs. 4,500/ - per acre for wet lands. Aggrieved by the said award, petitioners sought reference under section 18 of the act to the civil court for enhancement of the compensation.

(3) The learned subordinate judge, gadwal by common order dt. 26 - 4 - 1990 partly allowed o. P. No. 42/85 and batch awarding compensation at the rate of rs. 10,000/ - per acre for dry lands and rs. 18,000/ - per acre for wet lands along with 30% solatium and interest as per the provisions of the act. It is stated that aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the civil court, the petitioners preferred appeal suit no. 1851/91 and batch while the respondents preferred appeal suit no. 1963/91 and batch, which are pending in this court. It is also stated that though o. P. No. 42/85 and batch were disposed of way back on 26 - 4 - 1990, no compensation is paid so far to the petitioners and, therefore, they filed e. P. No. 95/90 and batch for realisation of compensation amount and pbtained order of attachment of movable properties belonging to the office of respondents.

(4) Sri. C. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, has mainly contended that the lands in question were compulsorily acquired in 1981; award was passed in 1982; though we are in 1993, so far the respondents have not paid the compensation awarded by the civil court in o. P. No. 42 of 1985 and batch. It is further stated that inconsistent submissions were made by the respondents in the execution petitions that appeals are pending on the file of the high court and that sufficient funds were not available to pay the compensation; thus the efforts of the petitioners in getting the compensation are being frustrated by this type of methods adopted by the respondents. It is further contended that the respondents are adopting a subtle device by depositing the amounts in other ops. Which were disposed of much later than the present ops. , as the respondents have developed soft comer towards some of the land owners whose lands have been subsequently acquired and orders are passed by the civil courts much later. Sri. Ramakrishna further submits that the procedure normally adopted in the high court in all the cases where the government files appeals is to file a petition for stay of execution proceedings and that on such stay petition being filed, the high court normally grants interim stay on condition of the authorities depositing at least some amount till the disposal of the appeal. In the instant case, it is stated, the respondents have developed such method that no stay petition is filed, with the result no conditional order is passed in the appeals filed in the high court. It is further stated that in many cases, appeals have been filed and along with appeals, stay petitions have also been filed and this court granted conditional stay. Consequent upon such order, amounts have been deposited and the land owners withdrew the amounts. Unfortunately,sri ramakrishna submits, in the case of the petitioners, the respondents are adopting a step - motherly treatment, as the petitioners are not prepared to negotiate with the officials. Sri ramakrishna states that where thousands of acres of land was acquired for projects, where official respondents were adopting difference devices for paying the compensation to land owners, some of the aggrieved land owners, whose lands though acquired earlier and though civil court passed awards earlier in the ops. , yet the officials connected with land acquisition proceedings had created a "vested interest group" and were depositing compensation according to their whims and fancies irrespective of the age of the award. Under those circumstances, some of the land owners whose lands were acquired had filed writ petitions and also writ appeals seeking a direction for depositing the amounts. A division bench of this court in writ appeal no. 1044/88 dated 12 - 7 - 1988 considered the issues raised therein and directed the respondents to deposits the amount of compensation in accordance with the seniority. Despite the direction of the division bench, the respondents are following convenient methods to suit their interest. Under these circumstances, sri ramakrishna states that the petitioners are exposed to high and dry and have no other go than to approach this court under article 226 of the constitution of india seeking indulgence of this court for a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation immediately.

(5) The allegations made by the petitioners are not denied by the respondents. The grounds made out by the learned government pleader are that this court under article 226 of the constitution of india cannot direct the respondents to pay the compensation when appeals are pending in the high court. Secondly, when execution proceedings are pending, it is open to the petitioners to pursue the remedy available in the execution petitions and, therefore, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india.

(6) There is no dispute as to the fact of pendency of the execution proceedings. It is made known to me at the time of arguments that the civil court is also placed in helpless situation when the respondents are pleading before it that appeals have been pending on the file of the high court. It is also to be noticed that the respondents have been taking inconsistent pleas before the civil court that sufficient amounts are not available to discharge the obligation and, therefore, are seeking time repeatedly on one pretext or the other,. This method is very much prevalent in land acquisition proceedings. In similar circumstances, when the respondents were adopting various methods of pick and choose in paying compensation, some of the aggrieved persons moved this court by way of writ petitions and writ appeals seeking a direction to pay the compensation. The division bench of this court in w. A. No. 1044/88 has categorically directed the respondents to make payments strictly in accordance with the seniority, that! is to say, the persons whose ops. Are disposed of earlier should be paid earlier. That being the background of this case, it is not open to the respondents to say that remedy is available to the petitioners in execution proceedings and they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india. The appeals are no doubt pending on the file of this court, but there is no stay insofar as payment of compensation is concerned. Where there is no stay as regards payment of compensation, it is not open to the respondents to execuse themselves from making payment on the pretext that appeals are pending before the high court. This attitude of the respondents looks to me quite unnatural, as the lands in question have been acquired in 1981. Even after more than 12 years, the land owners are not paid their legitimate compensation. There is no rationale in denying the compensation to them.

(7) The question whether this court under article 226 of the constitution of india can come to the rescue of the petitioners in circumstances of this nature and direct the appropriate authority to discharge its obligation when this court has realised that such authority has failed to discharge its obligation, fell for consideration in the comptroller and auditor general vs. K. S. Jagannathan, wherein the supreme court held;

"there is thus no doubt that the high courts in india exercising their jurisdiction under article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has filed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a high court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority,and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion."

(8) Thus, it is evident from the ratio decidendi laid down by the supreme court that a high court under article 226, in given circumstances, can issue a writ of mandamus or a direction to compel performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or the public authority in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties. The entire history of the case would undoubtedly go to show that injustice has been done to the petitioners whose lands have been acquired way - back in 1981. Even after 12 years, the legitimate compensation if denied to the petitioners, can this not be termed as 'injustice' done to the petitioners? i have no doubt in my mind to hold that injustice is done to the petitioners on one pretext or the other. The mere pendency of appeals or alternative remedy in execution proceedings cannot be a ground for the respondents to excuse themselves in discharging their obligation which they are bound to discharge. Therefore, in my considered view, this court is competent to direct the respondents to act upon and pay the compensation to the petitioners.

(9) Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners in terms of the judgment and decree dated 26 - 4 - 1990 in o. P. No. 42 of 1985 and batch on the file of the subordinate judge's court, gadwal, within three months from the date of receipt of this order, without regard to the appeals pending in the high court.

(10) The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.