Telangana High Court
M/S. Gayathri Estate vs The State Of Telangana on 12 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Civil Revision Petition No.1397 OF 2020
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2020 in E.P.No.1044 of 2016 in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 2012 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the petitioner/decree holder filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter will be referred as 'trial Court').
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record available before the Court are that in LAOP No.23 of 2012 filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the trial Court has decreed the petition by enhancing Rs.2,500/- per square yard with 30% solatium on total compensation under Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act with 9% interest for one year and 15% per annum till realization. The decree holder filed E.P.No.1044 of 2016 claiming Rs.17,57,85,958/-. The respondent/Land Acquisition Officer has preferred Civil 2 MGP,J Crp_1397_2020 Revision Petition No.2481 of 2017 to set aside the docket order dated 21.03.2017 in E.P. No. 1044/2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District to the extent of issuing sale proclamation. Along with said Civil Revision Petition the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer has filed CRPMP No.3251 of 2017 seeking stay of proceedings in E.P.No.1044 of 2016, wherein stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.1044 of 2016 were granted subject to deposit of 1/3 of the decreetal amount in LAOP No.23 of 2012. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer has deposited Rs.5,85,49,032/-. The respondent/Land Acquisition Officer has challenged the order and decree passed by the trial Court vide LAAS No.29 of 2018, wherein the stay of operation of judgment and decree dated 19.02.2016 in LAOP No.23 of 2012 on the file of trial Court was granted subject to deposit of 50% of the enhanced compensation along with interest accrued. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer has deposited Rs.2,44,77,944/-. Thereafter, the decree holder has filed calculation memo contending that there is difference of Rs.3,30,01,272/- as the JDR shall deposit 50% of the balance amount but not 16.67% to make it to 50%. On considering the rival contentions and calculation memos filed by both the parties, the trial Court observed that the interpretation of the decree holder cannot be 3 MGP,J Crp_1397_2020 appreciated. Aggrieved by the same, the Decree Holder has filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of revision.
5. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/decree holder is that the amounts deposited by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer in two installments clubbed together will not amount to deposit of 50% of the enhanced amount with accrued interest as on 26.04.2018 and the deposited amount fell short to an extent of Ac.1,48,06,050/-.
6. The other contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the respondent calculated the balance of 16.67% on the figure of Rs.11,70,98,064/- instead of calculating 16.67% on the figure of Rs.17,56,47,097/- and that the respondent ought to have calculated 50% of the enhanced amount along with accrued interest on the figure of Rs.17,56,47,.097/- and ought to have deposited the balance amount after deducting Rs.5,85,49,032/-. It is further contended that 50% of the amount out of Rs.17,56,47,097/- will 4 MGP,J Crp_1397_2020 work out to Rs.8,78,23,548/- and after deducting the amount as directed by the High Court in view of the orders in CRP and deposited by the respondent, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,92,74,516/-, however, the respondent arrived at a figure of Rs.1,95,16,344/-, thus, there is a shortage of Rs.97,58,172/- as on 31.07.2018.
7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the calculation memo filed by the petitioner/decree holder is exorbitant as the decree holder has not taken into consideration of the amount already deposited component wise, while calculating 16.67%. The Land Acquisition Officer has calculated the 16.67% after excluding the amount already deposited and arrived to Rs.2,44,77,944/- and accordingly, the same was deposited in E.P.No.1046 of 2016.
8. As per the order, dated 26.05.2017 in CRP No.2481 of 2017, stay of further proceedings in E.P.No.1044 of 2016 was granted subject to deposit of 1/3rd of the decreetal amount in LAOP No.23 of 2012. The decreetal amount in LAOP No.23 of 2012 is Rs.17,57,85,958/- and 1/3rd of the decreetal amount is Rs.5,58,49,032/-, which was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer. Subsequently, as per the directions of the High Court in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in LAAS No.29 of 2018, the Land Acquisition 5 MGP,J Crp_1397_2020 Officer has deposited Rs.2,44,77,944/-. In the order dated 26.04.2018 it was observed by the High Court that while computing 50%, credit shall be given to the amount stated to have been deposited by the applicant in pursuance of order dated 26.05.2017 in CRP No.2481 of 2017. The contention of the revision petitioner is that there is a shortage of Rs.97,58,172/-.
9. Thus, from the rival contentions, the dispute between the parties is whether 16.67% calculation has to be made after deducting the initial money deposited by the respondent or before deducting the initial money deposited by the respondent. However, it is the contention of the respondent that on 03.01.2024 the Court directed the respondent to consider the representation (calculation memo) filed by the petitioner and to pass order and adjourned the matter to 12.01.2024. Accordingly, the respondent has passed orders vide proceedings No.LA/Unit-IV/192/2005, dated 04.01.2024 stating that the calculation memo submitted by the decree holder cannot be considered at this juncture, as the appeal in LAAS No.29 of 2018 challenging the compensation enhanced by the reference court is pending before the Court and the same will be considered, subject to final orders of the Court in LAAS No.29 of 6 MGP,J Crp_1397_2020 2018. But it is to be observed that the orders passed by this Court while granting stay, has to be complied by the respondent in proper perspective.
10. It is pertinent to note that whatever the amount ordered to be deposited by the respondent in both the cases filed before this Court is only to the extent of granting stay. It is also to be noted that aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation, the respondent has filed appeal. Thus, the total enhanced amount entitled to be received by the petitioner is subject to the result of LAAS No.29 of 2018, which is still pending. The dispute is only with regard to the percentage of the deposit that has to be made by the respondent to obtain stay in those respective cases. The petitioner is satisfied with the deposit that has been made by the respondent in CRP No.2481 of 2017. The petitioner is dissatisfied with the percentage of the deposit that is made in LAAS No.29 of 2018. The interpretation that can be drawn from both the orders passed by the High Court in both the cases is that the respondent was directed to pay 50% of the enhanced compensation. Even as per the calculation memo, the enhanced amount is Rs.10,15,72,170/- apart from the interest accrued. As per the calculation memo filed by the petitioner on 02.09.2016 before the Execution Court, the total enhanced 7 MGP,J Crp_1397_2020 amount along with interest is Rs.19,92,54,931/- out of which the amount already received by the petitioner to a tune of Rs.2,34,68,973/- was deducted and it arrives to Rs.17,57,85,958/-. As per the calculation memo filed by the petitioner before the Execution Court on 19.02.2019, the variation in calculation is Rs.97,63,976/-. The respondent contended that 16.67% calculation was made after deducting the initial money deposited by the respondent. But no where in the orders passed by this Court discloses that 16.67% calculation has to be made after deducting the initial money deposited by the respondent. The interpretation in the order passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in LAAS No.29 of 2018 is that the respondent has to deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation along with interest accrued thereon and while computing 50% the credit shall be given to the amount stated to have been deposited by the respondent in pursuance of the order in CRP No.2481 of 2017. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, even if the amounts deposited by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer in two installments clubbed together will not amount to deposit of 50% of the enhanced amount with accrued interest as on 26.04.2018.
8 MGP,J Crp_1397_2020
11. It is to be seen that the revision petitioner has not urged any relief in this Civil Revision Petition except mentioning that the Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned order. In view of the these facts and circumstances, this Court deems fit and proper to direct the Execution Court to consider the interpretation that 16.67% has to be calculated on the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest. The respondent/Land Acquisition Officer shall deposit the balance amount before the Execution Court in consonance with the interpretation that 16.67% has to be calculated on the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest but not after deducting the initial amount deposited by the respondent in pursuance of the order in CRP No.2481 of 2017.
12. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 12 .03.2024 AS