ORDER By a notification u/Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act) dated 7 -2-1979 inter alia an extent of AC.37 .18/2 gts, of agricultural land at Chengal village, Bheemgal Mandal, Nizamabad District, was acquired for construction of the R.F. Canal, Ramadugu. Of this extent lands of the petitioners acquired were in an extent of Ac.1.23, 1.21 and 0.12 guntas in Sy.Nos.567, 517 and 362 respectively. Eventually an award was passed on 27-12-1979 fixing the compensation at Rs.1,060/- per acre. The petitioners and other claimants sought reference under Sec.18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The petitioners claim for enhancement in O.P.No.329 of 1985 was determined by the learned Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, by the order dated 16-2-1990. The compensation was enhanced to Rs.5,400/per acre. As against this order the State preferred an appeal in A.S.No.1514 of 1998, while the petitioners filed cross-objections claiming compensation at Rs.10,000/- per acre. By the judgment dated 23-9-1998, this Court dismissed the States appeal and allowed the cross-objections filed by the claimants (petitioners) and determined the compensation at Rs.10,000/- per acre. This judgment of this court has become final. 2. During the pendency of A.S. No.1514/98, at the request of the State this Court granted interim stay of execution of the order in OP No.329/85 dated 16-2-90, on condition of the State depositing half of the decretal amount. Pursuant to the conditional interim order, the State Government deposited half the amount awarded in OP No.329/85. Consequent on the judgment of this Court in A.S. No.1514/98 and the cross-objections, the respondent-State is obligated to deposit the amount of compensation @ RS.10,000/- per acre, less the amount already deposited pursuant to the conditional interim order in AS NO.1514/98. 3. For realization of the amounts due from the State the petitioners tiled E.P. NO.20/99 in OP No.329/85. The State having failed to deposit the amount despite innumerable adjournments, the petitioners claim, the -properties of the office of the RDO, Nizamabad were attached. These properties are subject to numerous similar attachments and in any event their value is woefully inadequate for realization of the amounts due to the petitioners. Even though the E.P. was filed in the year 1999 (in respect of execution of the judgment and decree of this Court dated 23-9-1998 in AS NO.1514/98 and the cross-objections therein), till date the amounts due to the petitioners have not been realized. 4. Even though the E.P. was filed in the year 1999 (in respect of execution of the judgment and decree of this Court dated 23-9-1998 in AS NO.1514/98 and the cross-objections therein), till date the amounts due to the petitioners have not been realized. 4. Driven to a corner and desperation the petitioners filed W.P.No.9534 of 2005, in substance for a direction to the respondents herein to deposit the decretal amount in O.P No.329/85 as modified by this court by the judgment in AS. No.1514/98, dated 23-91998. By an interim order dated 14-6-2005 this Court issued the following direction in this writ petition: "Order" After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, though notice before admission was ordered on 26-4-2005 but the respondents have not chosen to file counter. In those circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land acquisition proceedings has attained its finality after disposal of A.S.1514/98, dated 23-9-98. Thereafter the Government has passed administrative sanction order through G.O.Rt.696, Irrigation & CAD, dt. 16-7-2004. Even then, the respondents are not depositing the said amount. In those circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to deposit the decretal amount in O.P.329/85, dt. 16-2-1990 on the file of the Court of Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as the petitioners were already dispossessed from the land in the year, 1979." 5. It requires to be noticed that earlier the State Government had issued G.O.Rt.696, irrigation & CAD, dt 16-7-2004 sanctioning the decretal amount, but despite this Government Order no amount was paid to the petitioners and therefore the petitioners had to file W.P.No.9534/05, in which the above interim direction came to be issued. 6. The Contempt case was initially filed on 3-1-2006; returned by the Registry of this Court with objections on 6-1-2006 and was resubmitted after complying with the objections on 23-1-2006. Notice before admission was issued on 3-2-2006. There being no response, the contempt case was admitted on 6-3-2006. 7. The singular complaint of the petitioners is that despite the chronology of events culminating in the interim order of this Court dt 14-6-2005 directing deposit of the decretal amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the interim order, the respondents have failed to comply with the order. 8. 7. The singular complaint of the petitioners is that despite the chronology of events culminating in the interim order of this Court dt 14-6-2005 directing deposit of the decretal amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the interim order, the respondents have failed to comply with the order. 8. For the record it must be stated that no extension of time was either sought by the respondents or granted by this Court for complying with the interim direction dt. 14-6-2005. 9. Sri Satish Chandra, IAS, the present Secretary, Irrigation and CAD, Government of AP, who had taken charge of the post on 20-5-2005 from the previous incumbent Sri C.V.S.K. Sarma, IAS, filed a counter-affidavit as the 1st respondent, on 6-4-2006. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit on 9-4-2006. 10. According to the 1st respondent after the judgment of this Court dt.23-9-98 in AS No.1514/98, the RDO, Nizamabad, sent proposals to the District Collector for sanction of the decretal amount, on 9-12-99 for an amount of Rs.17,31,719/- (nearly after 15 months from the date of the judgment of this Court in the appeal). The District Collector, Nizamabad, is stated to have recommended the proposals to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (for short "the Commissioner") on 21-12-99 and the Commissioner in turn recommended the proposals to the Government on 6-2-2000 for sanction of the amount as recommended by the RDO. According to the 1st respondent the Government examined the recommendation and opined that it was not in a proper proforma and as the opinion of the Government Pleader was also not enclosed to the proposal, the Commissioner was requested to furnish a revised calculation with the opinion of the GP, vide memo dated 1-8-2000 (22 months after the date of judgment in A.S.No.1514/98). The Commissioner sent a revised calculation for RS.11,74,758/- by the letter dated 14-8-2002 (more than 2 years after the Government Memo dt. 1-8-2000 and nearly after 4 years from the date of the judgment in the appeal). The Government again examined the matter and found that the Government Pleaders opinion was not enclosed. Therefore by the memo dated 3-10-2002 the Commissioner was directed to furnish a copy of the GPs opinion. The GPs opinion was furnished by the Commissioner on 18-03-2003 (about 41/2 years after the date of the judgment in the appeal). The Government again examined the matter and found that the Government Pleaders opinion was not enclosed. Therefore by the memo dated 3-10-2002 the Commissioner was directed to furnish a copy of the GPs opinion. The GPs opinion was furnished by the Commissioner on 18-03-2003 (about 41/2 years after the date of the judgment in the appeal). Thereafter the proposals were referred by the Irrigation Department to the Law Department on 12-03-2004 (51/2 years from the date of the judgment). The Law department on 18-03-2004 sought remarks from the Revenue Department. The file was then routed to the Revenue Department on 20-03-2004 and received back C?t;l13-05-2004 (nearly 5 years 8 months from the date of the judgment of this Court in the appeal). The file was returned to the Law department on 31-05-2004 with the remarks of the Revenue department and was received by Irrigation on 7-6-2004. It was then sent to the Finance Department on 21-06-2004 and returned on 01-07-2004. The file was then sent to the concerned Minister on 01-07 -2004, received back from the Minister on 14-07-2004 duly approved and G.O.Rt.No.696, dated 15-07-2004 was issued for Rs.17,31,719/-The counter-affidavit (of the 1st respondent) fails to explain why sanction was carelessly accorded in G.O.Rt.No.696 for Rs.17,31,719/-, when the Commissioner had furnished a revised calculation (nearly two (2) years earlier) recommending payment of RS.11,74,758/- vide letter dt 14-08-2002. Why enclosing the Government Pleaders opinion took more than three years from 1999 to 18-03-2003, the counter fails to elucidate. Further according to the 1st respondent, after issuance of G.O.Rt.696, the Chief Engineer, Medium Irrigation, reported on 18-10-2004 that the RDO, Nizamabad had revised the calculation to RS.11,74,758/- and requested the Government to issue revised orders. Thereupon the Government requested the Commissioner on 4-11-2004 to sanction the revised proposals for Rs.11,74,758/- and also addressed the District Collector, Nizamabad to verify the interest to be calculated @ 4% p.a. prior to 30-4-1982 as the amendment Act had come into force in 1982. 11. The 1st respondent admits that the interim order dt 14-6-2005 in W.P .No.9534 of 2005 was received by the respondent through the petitioners counsel on 12-9-2005. The interminable and often pointless interdepartmental correspondence and the supine indifference and gross carelessness employed to process the petitioners claims, were yet again invoked, even after the receipt of the order of this Court dated 14-6-2005 on 12-9-2005. The interminable and often pointless interdepartmental correspondence and the supine indifference and gross carelessness employed to process the petitioners claims, were yet again invoked, even after the receipt of the order of this Court dated 14-6-2005 on 12-9-2005. The Government again addressed the District Collector on 25-10-2005 to take necessary action and three months later on 12-1-2006 again called upon the District Collector to send revised calculations. This time the District Collector sent revised proposals for Rs. 7,25,856/- to the Commissioner. Notice in this Contempt Case was received by the Government on 18-2-2006. The Government then contacted the District Collector to send proposals to the Commissioner and these were sent on 23-2-2006 recommending deposit of Rs. 7,25,856/-. According to the 1 5t respondent the reduction in the amount from RS.11 ,74,758/- to Rs.7 ,25,856/- was caused due to an error in interest calculation. Thereafter sanction for Rs.7,25,856/- was given in G.O.Rt.No.123, dated 4-3-2006 in supersession of the earlier order issued in G.O.Rt.No.696. The amount is stated to have been deposited in the Court on 20-3-2006. The 1st respondents counter is silent on the aspect whether any disciplinary action or other serious administrative action was even considered at any level, for the successive executive morbidity in the manner the petitioners claims were processed and deposit of the amounts due to them were delayed (from September 1998 to 20-3-2006 for over 71/2 years). 12. Admittedly the copy of the interim order dated 14-6-2005 in the writ petition was received on 12-9-2005. Even thereafter there is no evidence of any concern for the rule of law, the obligation to abide by the directions of this Court, the need to conform to the specified time schedule nor a sense of urgency. The petitioners are not mendicants seeking alms or charity. Under our constitutional scheme, the petitioners are the employers of the entirety of public Officers and of the three great departments of the State-the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary too. The States obligation to pay compensation to the petitioners, for the acquired lands is the corollary of their legal entitlement, no less an entitlement as is the entitlement of every public servant to receive monthly salary from the State. 13. The States obligation to pay compensation to the petitioners, for the acquired lands is the corollary of their legal entitlement, no less an entitlement as is the entitlement of every public servant to receive monthly salary from the State. 13. Having regard to the totality of circumstances at least after receipt of the interim order of this Court dated 14-6-2005, (admittedly on 12-9-2005) the 1st respondent was required to monitor on a day to day basis and ensure payment to the petitioners with utmost expedition and by cracking a heavy whip hand to ruthlessly cut down and eliminate the earlier supine conduct. No such concern and action is established. The counter of the 1st respondent does not even state as to any action taken or even contemplated against any subordinate or other officer(s) for the irrelevant and irrational file passing extravaganza that exemplifies the State activity in this case, even after the interim order dated 14-6-2005. No inquiry was initiated as to the reasons for wrong calculation of interest, the personnel responsible for the delay and why no extension of time was sought. 14. The 2nd respondents counter is a reiteration of the litany of irrational and interminable file pushing exercises that occurred between 23-9-1998 and 20-3-2006. 15. The interim direction was granted by this Court on 14-6-2005 directing the respondents herein to deposit the decretal amount in OP. No.329/85 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The order was admittedly received by the 1st respondent on 12-9-2005. The amount was not deposited within eight weeks, no extension of time was sought and the explanation given for the delay is wholly unsatisfactory. Contumacious disregard of the order of this Court dated 14-6-2005 is the compelling conclusion. 16. In order to hear the respondents on the appropriate orders consequent on the prima facie conclusion of commission of contempt by them, a notice was issued for appearance on 23-6-2006, on 9-6-2006. On 23-6-2006 the respondents have appeared and were represented by the learned Advocate General. 17. The learned Advocate General, on behalf of the respondents, sought two weeks time to file a considered response and pleaded that an opportunity be provided to the respondents to make amends. On 6-7-2006 an elaborate counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Sri Satish Chandra, the current Secretary, Irrigation Department. 18. 17. The learned Advocate General, on behalf of the respondents, sought two weeks time to file a considered response and pleaded that an opportunity be provided to the respondents to make amends. On 6-7-2006 an elaborate counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Sri Satish Chandra, the current Secretary, Irrigation Department. 18. In the counter, the 1st respondent stated that the delay in complying with the direction of this Court dt 14-6-2005 occurred on account of the failure of the supporting administrative staff in promptly bringing to the notice of the answering respondent and his predecessor (the current officer took charge on 20-5-05), the show cause notice issued in the contempt case and the several earlier proceedings and that part of the delay had occurred on account of the apparently archaic procedure adopted in implementing court orders. In Para-6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that in the first week of March 2006 the matter was processed and referred to the Finance Department as the concurrence of the Finance Department and as per the business rules the approval of the Honble Finance Minister, are needed for release of the funds. However in view of the pendency of the contempt case, the 1st respondent states, the G.O. was issued even without the approval of the Honble Minister and thereafter referred to him for post-approval. In Para-20 of the counter the 1st respondent states that on a critical examination of the entire issue, as to the delay in depositing the amounts from September 1998 till the date of deposit of the amounts sometime in March 2006, the answering respondent identified six officers as responsible for the delays at several levels. It is also stated (Para-21) that action against the Revenue Divisional Officers responsible for the delay is under consideration and a report was sent to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, for initiating disciplinary action against the then RDO one Sri Veeramallu and the current RDO Sri Chandrasekhar and a show cause notice has also been issued to one Sri Ramana Murthy the then Joint Secretary, irrigation and Sri Subrahmanyam another Joint Secretary. The answering respondent also refers to various general administrative measures taken for ensuring expeditious action in settling the dues relating to land acquisition cases. The 1st respondent has tendered an unconditional apology and sought clemency from this Court. 19. The answering respondent also refers to various general administrative measures taken for ensuring expeditious action in settling the dues relating to land acquisition cases. The 1st respondent has tendered an unconditional apology and sought clemency from this Court. 19. The 1st respondent has also by a letter dated 3-7-2006 tendered an unconditional apology to the writ petitioners for the delay in depositing the amounts due to them, a copy of which has been furnished for the record of this Court. 20. In the light of the above circumstances, this court is satisfied that the respondents have realized the error of their ways and are adequately sensitized to the seriousness of the issue and the consequences that follow on volitional or careless disregard of the orders of this Court. In the circumstances this court is not inclined to proceed further to punish the respondents for contempt. 21. However, one observation requires to be made as to the irrelevance of the administrative procedures adopted in payment of amounts due in land acquisition cases coupled with a total ignorance of or indifference to, the degree of liability that land acquisition dues finally determined by the courts constitute under our legal system, in the context of the several varieties of fiscal liabilities of a State. 22. It requires to be noticed that land acquisition cases occasionally and sometimes with disturbing frequency involve either fraudulent claims or fraudulent processing at Governmental and other levels resulting in avoidable loss to the public exchequer. In the circumstances, strict and vigorous vigilance by the executive authority is undoubtedly essential. Vigilance as is required however does not mean inaction or lethargy in payment of legitimate and finally determined claims. 23. The case on hand illustrates the general phenomenon of inexcusable, illegal and unjustified delay in the payments. By the judgment dt 23-9-98 in AS No.1514/98 the amounts due to the petitioner were determined. The State has admittedly not chosen to appeal and the judgment became final. 24. Article 202 of the Constitution obligates the Governor to cause to be laid before the Legislature of the State a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the State for that year, referred to in the Constitution as the "annual financial statement". Article 202(2) enacts that the sums required to meet the expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Found of the State should be shown separately. Article 202(2) enacts that the sums required to meet the expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Found of the State should be shown separately. In view of the provisions of Art.202(3)(e) such sums as are required to satisfy any judgment, decree or award of any Court or arbitral tribunal, are a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the State. The annual financial statement that is required to be laid (before the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh) on a date subsequent to 23-9-1998 (the date of judgment in AS No.1514/98 (should have necessarily included as a component of the expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, the amount due and payable under the above decree. For this purpose the executive was required to make a meticulous calculation of the amounts due and payable under this decree so as to ensure the accuracy of the annual financial statement. Failure to have taken consideration of this amount while computing the quantum of the charge on the Consolidated Fund of the State, in the annual financial statement would perhaps constitute a clearly careless and negligent or even a conscious executive conduct of withholding critical and constitutionally mandated information (as to the actual quantum of charge on the Consolidated Fund of the State) by way of the annual financial statement, before the Legislature. A very serious delinquency indeed. 25. The Executive ought to be adequately sensitized to the constitutional edict that the sums required to satisfy any judgment, decree or award of any court or arbitral tribunal is made a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the State along with the emoluments and allowances of the Governor and other expenditure relating to his office; the salaries and allowances of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council also the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council; the debt charges for which the State is liable including interest, sinking fund charges and redemption charges and other expenditure relating to the raising of loans and the service and redemption of debt; expenditure in respect of salaries and allowances of Judges of the High Court; and any other expenditure declared by the Constitution, or by the Legislature of the State by law to be so charged (on the Consolidated Fund of the State). 26. 26. Article 204(2) of the Constitution prohibits any amendment to an appropriate Bill, to the extent appropriation is specified to meet or even to alter the destination, of the expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State. A signal that this charge is not negotiable and not susceptible to legislative discretion on fiscal policy. 27. The position in respect of the procedure specified in financial matters in respect of Money Bill and Annual Financial Statement for a State, is similar to the position in the case of the Federal Government [See Articles 112 and 114(2)]. 28. From the aforesaid analysis the position appears clear that the fiscal liability of the State in respect of amounts which are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, ranks superior to the liability in respect of amounts which are not so charged. Once this expenditure is a charge, no question of lack of funds arises, nor is there apparent any available discretion in the Executive to alter the destination of this charged and appropriated expenditure, for any other purpose 29. Avoidance or inexplicable postponement of the discharge of this liability can only perhaps be justified on grounds of extreme financial stringency of a decree warranting invocation of the emergency provisions in Part XVIII of the Constitution. The drafting of the constitutional provisions in this area follows the long, venerated and refined tradition of Constitution making where the liability of the State to the amounts due, as determined after due adjudication by courts or arbitral Tribunals, is accorded a primacy along with the amounts payable by way of salaries or other establishment expenditure in respect of specified critical institutions and incumbents of such institutions and the public debts of the State. These liabilities, the Constitution has declared, are superior to the liability assumed by the State either towards non-charged establishment and other expenditure or even executive policy. Any executive action inconsistent with or insensitive to the enacted constitutional discipline would be unjustified and actionable. Administrative procedures including in financial matters must and of compelling necessity reflect or be reorchestrated, if need be, to conform to constitutional discipline and the constitutionally defined priority of State financial obligations. Short of declaration of financial emergency, the State is not permitted to plead lack of funds for payment of land acquisition claims, duly and finally determined by court judgment and decree. Short of declaration of financial emergency, the State is not permitted to plead lack of funds for payment of land acquisition claims, duly and finally determined by court judgment and decree. State action of meeting other expenditure-that is not a charge on the Consolidated Fund while withholding release of expenditure that is a charge would tantamount to a fraud on the fiscal obligations of the State and a transgression of the fiscal priorities as constitutionally ordained. 30. This court is constrained to embark upon the above analysis in view of the almost regnant and deeply disturbing feature of the States failing and for unaccountably extended periods of time, to redeem and deposit/pay even the determined final liability, adjudicated by the Courts of competent jurisdiction in land acquisition cases and often without any legal justification, in substance or procedure. There appears an attitude of executive ignorance or contempt and defiance of the mandate of the Constitution. 31. A copy of this order shall be marked to the Chief Secretary and Secretary (Finance), Government of Andhra Pradesh. 32. However, for the reasons stated above the Contempt Case is closed. Rule is discharged.