Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation as per the common judgment and decree, dated 12.12.2002, in LAOP.Nos.422 to 427 of 1987 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (for short, “the Civil Court”). 2. I have heard Sri G. Dharma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 3. The lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired and awards were passed. Feeling dissatisfied with the inadequacy of compensation, the petitioners have sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). Accordingly, the references were made and registered as LAOP.Nos.422 to 427 of 1987 in the Civil Court. By a common judgment and decree, dated 12.12.2002, the references were disposed of by the Civil Court. The petitioners pleaded that dissatisfied with the limited enhancement made by the Civil Court, they have filed A.S.No.671 of 2003 and batch, which are stated to be pending in this Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though nearly 9 years had elapsed, the respondents have not deposited the enhanced compensation. 4. Ordinarily, the remedy for the decree-holders is to file execution petitions. Where the execution petitions are kept pending for years on end and compensation is not deposited, this Court has been entertaining Writ Petitions and giving directions to the State and its officers to deposit the compensation amounts. 5. In the instant case, it is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have filed execution petitions. The petitioners, who have kept quiet for 9 years without filing execution petitions, cannot be permitted to approach this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Unless the petitioners approach the Civil Court by way of execution petitions and fail to get relief therein, they cannot be permitted to avail the remedy of Writ Petition. Unless the petitioners approach the Civil Court by way of execution petitions and fail to get relief therein, they cannot be permitted to avail the remedy of Writ Petition. The Larger Bench judgment of this Court in Bhimidipati Annapoorna Bhavani vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Yeluru Reservoir Project, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, A.P. and others 2005 (3) ALD 233 (LB) on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no avail to them, because, in that case admittedly execution petition was filed by a person, who was 92 years old and as the said remedy has not yielded effective result, she has approached this Court. The Larger Bench on a review of the case law on the maintainability of the Writ Petition inspite of availability of alternative remedies held that in exceptional cases where the alternative remedy was proved ineffective, this Court can entertain Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Indeed, the Larger Bench in no uncertain terms held that a person must first resort to the alternative efficacious remedy of taking out execution and when despite taking out such proceedings, if there is any delay caused on the part of the authorities, resort can be had to filing of a Writ Petition. It was further held that in such event, this Court may in appropriate cases issue directions for immediate deposit of the amount of compensation. 6. As held by the Larger Bench, unless the petitioners first avail the alternative remedy of filing execution petitions and fail to get relief therein, they are not entitled to approach this Court straight away seeking execution of the decrees passed by the reference Court. 7. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to file execution petitions. 8. As a sequel, WPMP.No.41700 of 2011 is also dismissed.