AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J. ( 1 ) THE Government of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others are the appellants in this appeal. The appeal was filed by the State against an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 21781 of 2001 at the admission stage. ( 2 ) THE Writ Petitioners filed the Writ petition to issue a direction to the respondents therein to pay the enhanced compensation as per the judgment and decree in the earlier O. P. 1488 of 1988 dated 13-5-1996 on the file of the Subordinate judge, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. ( 3 ) THE learned Judge without even ordering notice to the respondents therein allowed the Writ Petition by issuing a mandamus directing the respondents to deposit the enhanced compensation in terms of the decree and judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned government Pleader and the Counsel appearing for the respondents in this appeal. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the learned Government pleader, the very Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India cannot issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to make payment in relation to the amount enhanced in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. ( 6 ) A similar question was referred to the full Bench of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement. The Full Bench comprising of Honourable Chief Justice Satyabrata sinha and two other learned Judges - Goda raghuram, J and V. V. S. Rao, J - by a judgment dated 19th October, 2001, made in w. P. No. 18287 of 2000 and batch answered the said question in the affirmative. The Full bench held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable when a remedy provided for under the Code of Civil Procedure is available to the claimants. The Bench has also observed that the remedy provided under the Code of Civil Procedure is the only effective remedy and, therefore this court cannot entertain Writ Petitions for mandamus to pay the enhanced compensation amount. However, the Bench, while disposing of the Writ Petitions has observed as follows:"assuming that a Writ Petition would be maintainable, a Writ. of Mandamus can only be issued. However, the Bench, while disposing of the Writ Petitions has observed as follows:"assuming that a Writ Petition would be maintainable, a Writ. of Mandamus can only be issued. If there is a violation of such a Writ, a contempt petition will also not be maintainable for execution of the decree. It is accepted at the Bar that even in such a case, for the purpose of execution, the petitioner has to knock the doors of the civil Court. It would not be thus correct to contend that the mandamus can issue as a rule. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that for execution of decree a Writ of mandamus would not be ordinarily entertained by this Court. "the Full Bench has further observed that:"however, we hope and trust that keeping in view the fact that the State has exercised the power of eminent domain, it has a duty to pay the amount of compensation determined by the Court to the awardees as expeditiously as possible. If requisite amounts are not deposited within a reasonable time the executing Courts may take such coercive steps as are permissible in law in the light of the observations made hereinbefore to the effect that not only the properties belonging to the office of the Collector can be attached but any property of the state can be attached. " ( 7 ) IN the instant case, though compensation was enhanced by order dated 13-5-1996, the Government has miserably failed to deposit the amount within the reasonable time which compelled the respondents herein to file the Writ Petition for a Mandamus since the requisite amount has not been deposited by the Government. We, therefore, reserve the liberty to the respondents herein, the petitioners in the writ Petition, to approach the executing court for appropriate relief. ( 8 ) THE Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the learned single judge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.