Telangana High Court
The Ntpc Ltd. , vs Muthyam Agaiah Died on 11 July, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1768 OF 2025
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. Radha Krishna Murthy I.V., learned counsel representing Ms. A.Jayashree, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aravindu Maturi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. This revision is filed under Section - 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.47 of 2012 in LAOP No.244 of 1987.
3. LAOP No.244 of 1987 is a reference under Section - 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act, 1894') on the letter dated 28.02.1986 seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and the Sendhi Trees of the petitioners therein situated at Allure Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. The same was decreed on 17.06.1996 by the learned Subordinate Judge at Peddapalli enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,000/- per acre to Rs.7,500/- per acre in respect of dry and wet lands admeasuring Acs.6.10 guntas in Survey Nos.127, 128, 133, 136, 140 and 125 of Alluru Village. With regard to sendhi trees, the same is enhanced 2 KL, J CRP No.1768 of 2025 from Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per big sendhi tree, from Rs.10/- to Rs.50/- per medium size sendhi tree and from Rs.0.25ps. to Rs.5/- per small sendhi tree. Solatium was also awarded and directed the Referring Officer to pay solatium @ 30%, interest @ 9% for a period of one year from the date of taking possession i.e., 03.05.1983 and @ Rs.15% per annum from the remaining period till the date of realization on the enhanced amount as directed in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the decree.
4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein being legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1 filed Execution Petition vide E.P. No.47 of 2012 for execution of the said award and decree. Vide order dated 08.04.2025, learned Executing Court considering the fact that it cannot authenticate the mathematical calculation submitted by the decree- holders, as such, it has directed its office to verify the record and certify the correctness of the calculations as stated by the decree holders. As per the calculation memo filed by the decree holders is in accordance with law, learned Executing Court directed its office to verify the calculation, interest and as to whether claim made by the claimants is correct or not. Then, learned Executing Court directed its 3 KL, J CRP No.1768 of 2025 office to verify the calculations submitted by the decree holders in the presence of both counsel.
5. Mr. Thakur Ravinder Singh, learned counsel for judgment debtors in E.P. No.47 of 2012 filed affidavit stating that the office of Executing Court did not permit him to verify the calculations submitted by the decree holders as directed by learned Executing Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.47 of 2012. In paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit, he has specifically stated that the office of Executing Court neither issued notice to him nor permitted him to attend for verification. On the other hand, they have submitted the note, upon which the EP was allowed. Thus, the office of Executing Court has not followed the directions issued by the Executing Court. Vide order dated 08.04.2025, the Executing Court allowed the said E.P. stating that the EP is allowed by verifying the calculations, since the EP is of 2012, office was directed to put up the note by 17.04.2025.
6. Mr. Radha Krishna Murthy I.V., learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner herein, would submit 4 KL, J CRP No.1768 of 2025 that the office of the Executing Court did not put up the note by 17.04.2025 in compliance with the order dated 08.04.2025.
7. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 - decree holders filed counter and vacate stay application contending that calculations were mentioned in the affidavit itself. The petitioner herein - judgment debtor did not comply with the award and decree in LAOP No.244 of 1987. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the petitioner herein is trying drag on the proceedings. In the said course of action, it has filed the present revision and obtained interim orders.
8. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the dispute is with regard to solatium and interest. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspects, more particularly, calculations filed by the decree- holders, the Executing Court was not in a position to authenticate it, therefore, it has directed its office to verify the record, certify the correctness of the calculations as stated by the decree holders in the presence of both the counsel.
9. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the office of Executing Court did not permit learned 5 KL, J CRP No.1768 of 2025 counsel for the judgment debtors to verify the calculations filed by the decree holders in terms of order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.47 of 2012.
10. Mr. Thakur Ravinder Singh, learned counsel for judgment debtors in E.P. No.47 of 2012 filed affidavit stating that the office of Executing Court did not permit him to verify the calculations submitted by the decree holders as directed by learned Executing Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.47 of 2012. Having directed its office to verify the calculations filed by the decree-holders in the presence of both the counsel, learned Executing Court should have verified as to whether its office afforded opportunity to learned counsel for the petitioner to verify the calculations. In the light of the same, the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Executing Court in E.P. No.47 of 2012 in LAOP No.244 of 1987 is liable to be set aside.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Peddapalli (Executing Court) in E.P. No.47 of 2012 in LAOP No.244 6 KL, J CRP No.1768 of 2025 of 1987. The matter is remanded back to the Executing Court with a direction to permit Mr. Thakur Ravinder Singh, learned counsel for the judgment debtors, to verify the calculations filed by the decree holders and also learned counsel for the decree holders to verify the same. Thereafter, the office of the Executing Court shall put up a note for the purpose of passing necessary orders. On receipt of the said report/note by the office, learned Executing Court shall decide E.P. No.47 of 2012 strictly in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order.
12. As stated above, the EP is of the year 2012, learned Executing Court shall dispose of the said E.P. within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 11th July, 2025 Mgr