Telangana High Court
Punreddy Narender Reddy vs The Land Aquisition Officer on 21 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1475 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner who is decree holder in O.P.No.750 of 1998 and petitioner in E.P.No.18 of 2002 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2017, in the above referred execution petition, whereunder the learned District Judge, dismissed the claim of the petitioner/Decree Holder for recovering a sum of Rs.22,64,747/-, partly allowed the execution petition by directing the respondent/Judgment Debtor to pay only an amount of Rs.9,930/-, the petitioner/decree holder filed this civil revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent/Government to pay the compensation amount as per the calculations shown by him in the memo that was filed before the execution Court.
2. As could be seen from the impugned order as well as other material placed before this Court, it appears that the 1st respondent i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda (Land Acquisition Officer) has acquired dry land to an extent of 14.2 ½ at Chinthapally Village from the petitioner/decree holder. The said acquisition was for the purpose of providing house sites to the members of weaker sections. The Land Acquisition Officer having followed the procedure contemplated in the Land Acquisition Act, offered an amount of Rs.19,500/- per acre towards compensation for the acquired land.
3. The petitioner/Decree Holder who was not satisfied with the said compensation, filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the City Civil Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.19,500/- per acre to Rs.25,000/- per acre. The petitioner being not happy with the said compensation amount filed appeal before the High Court and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.52,000/- per acre. The appeal preferred by the 1st respondent before the Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed on 09.08.2011. Therefore, the petitioner has filed execution petition vide E.P.No.18 of 2002 with a prayer to direct the respondent/Judgment Debtor to pay Rs.22,64,747/- which includes the compensation for the land, interest etc., as per the award.
4. The respondent disputed the claim of the petitioner herein. The respondent has claimed that they are not liable to pay the above referred huge amount and according to them there is only an outstanding amount of Rs.9,930/-. Thereby, sought for dismissal of the execution petition, however, the respondent was ready to pay the said Rs.9,930/- to satisfy the award passed in favour of the petitioner/decree holder.
5. As could be seen from the impugned order, the learned District Judge, though the petitioner has filed a detailed calculation memo, did not accept the said calculations and while observing that the calculations shown in the memo filed by the Judgment Debtor gives clear and categorical picture of the calculations and as the respondent is a public institution, holding that there is a meager amount was left to be paid by the respondent. Thereby, partly allowed the execution petition, directing the respondent/Judgment Debtor to pay Rs.9,930/-
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/decree holder has submitted that though they have filed a detailed calculation memo before the execution Court, the same was not properly appreciated by the learned District Judge. On the other hand he has accepted the calculations shown by the respondent without adhering to the settled proposition of law and without appreciating the judgments relied on by the petitioner/decree holder. He has also submitted that the impugned order clearly indicates that there was no proper application of mind by the learned District Judge in partly allowing the application. Therefore, sought for grant of the amount that was claimed by the decree holder in the execution petition.
7. Whereas the learned Government Pleader representing the respondent would submit that the petitioner is not able to substantiate the claim as to how he is entitled to receive more than Rs.22,00,000/- and the memo filed by the petitioner/Decree Holder is incorrect and without proper calculations. Therefore, while supporting the order of the learned District Judge in the above referred execution petition, he sought for dismissal of the present revision.
8. According to the memo filed by the petitioner/decree holder before the execution Court an amount was Rs.9,90,109/- was shown as outstanding amount to be paid by the Judgment Debtor. When the execution petition was pending, another memo was filed by the petitioner/decree holder claiming a sum of Rs.22,64,747/- In the memo the petitioner/Decree Holder has submitted that he is entitle to the said amount due to the enhancement of compensation as per the final orders of the High Court in the appeal preferred by him. Whereas in the memo that was filed by the respondent, it is stated that there is only an amount of Rs.9,930/- as outstanding amount. A perusal of the order impugned in the present revision indicates that the learned District Judge simply carried away by the calculations filed by the respondent/Judgment Debtor and it appears that he was of the opinion that since the respondent is a public institution, therefore, it cannot be asked to pay more than the amount that was shown by the respondent in its calculation memo. As rightly submitted by the petitioner herein, there is nothing in the order as to how he came to the conclusion about the liability of the respondent for payment of Rs.9,930/-. For the sake of convenience, it is just and necessary to extract the operative portion of the order whereunder learned District Judge partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner.
"It is also the undisputed fact that the moveables of the J.Dr. were attached and attachment was effected. It is a public institution and the amount is very meager as per the calculation filed by the J.Dr more particularly amount due is Rs.9,930/- only without any adding and the E.P. is old and pending since long date and pending for disposal as arrears. Hence it is the consideration opinion of this Court that keeping the matter pending is no way gives any fruitful results except directions to the concerned authority to deposit the amount of Rs.9,930/- on the ground that the Decree Holder is not entitled for any interest during the pendency of the proceedings on the assumptory calculations. Hence interest also not allowed and also the considered opinion of this Court that keeping pendency of the E.P. will not give any fruitful results and closing of the E.P. is just and necessary at this stage with direction to the J.Dr but deposit the remaining balance amount to the credit of the said O.P. Accordingly this point is answered".
9. It is very clear from the order that in spite of the fact that there is specific contention by the petitioner as to how he is entitled to claim interest on the outstanding amount, no reason has been given as to why the Court below discarded the said contention.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on Judgment of this Court in Special Deputy Collector Railways, LAO, Nalgonda vs Sanjay Kumar Pandey 1 submitted that it is the duty of LAO to comply the award as modified by the higher firm. The procedure for such payment has been stated by Supreme Court in (1995) 5 SCR 70 which was approved in 2007 (4 ALD 105). He has 1 2020 1 ALD 310 TS also claimed that the petitioner/decree holder is entitled to difference of interest at any stage of the proceedings. Award of interest is obligatory and consequential to application of Section 34 or 28 .
11. Learned District Judge did not explain the reasons for coming to the conclusion while awarding only a meager amount of Rs.9,930/- in spite of the fact that a calculation memo was field by the decree holder. Therefore, it is just and necessary to remand the matter to the Court below for fresh appreciation of the contentions and to arrive to a correct figure as to how much is liable to be paid by the respondent/Judgment Debtor.
12. Therefore, the petition is disposed by remanding the matter to the learned Principal District Judge for fresh appreciation. Learned District Judge shall hear both parties and come to a conclusion based on the arguments as well as calculations put forth by both the parties by duly considering the order of High Court finally disposing the appeal of the petitioner, and dispose the execution petition within three (3) months from the date of receiving copy of this Order.
13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed with the aforesaid directions. No costs.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU Date: 21.06.2024 PSSK