Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Additional District Judge vs Unknown on 5 August, 2022
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1511 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated
06.07.2022 in E.P.No.511 of 2019 in LAOP No.51 of 2012 on the file of I
Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.
02. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material
available on record.
03. The Petitioner is the Judgment Debtor and the respondents are the
Decree Holders in E.P.No.511 of 2019 in LAOP No.51 of 2012 on the file of
the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner acquired
Ac.2.23 cents of the land of the respondents for consideration of
Hiramandalam Reservoir Project. Having not satisfied with the
compensation, the matter was referred to the Civil Court and the Court
passed an Award On 19.09.2016 in favour of the respondents for
Rs.16,83,739/- with interest. Thereafter, the respondents filed Execution
Petition No.511 of 2019 for realization of Rs.43,90,285-53 ps by attaching
the Office Furniture situated in the Office of the Judgment Debt at
Collectorate, Srikakulam, worth Rs.1,15,00,000/-. The Executing Court, on
erroneous consideration of the facts, allowed the said application. Aggrieved
by the same, he filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Order
passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and
probabilities of the case. The Executing Court failed to see that the decree in
L.A.O.P.No.51 of 2012 is not became final as the same was questioned by
way of appeal before this Court. The Executing Court without giving any
reasons allowed the application filed by the respondents seeking for
attachment and sale of the EP schedule property, which is not correct in the
eye of law. The Executing Court erroneously came to a conclusion even
though the decree was already disputed in appeal before the Hon'ble High
Court. Finally, he prays to allow the Civil Revision Petition.
06. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears
that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had initiated land acquisition
proceedings in the year 2005 and acquired the land of the respondents to
an extent of Ac.2.23 cents for consideration of Hiramandalam Reservoir
Project. The physical possession of the land was taken on 19.01.2006. The
petitioner determined the market value at Rs.390/- per square yard. Having
not satisfied with the compensation, the respondents got the matter
referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The
Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, on consideration of the entire material
available on record, passed an Award dated 19.09.2016. Till date, the
petitioner did not pay the Award amount. The respondents filed Execution
Petition in E.P.No.511 of 2019 in LAOP No.51 of 2012, seeking for
attachment of office furniture of the office of the petitioner situated at
Collectorate, Srikakulam.
07. The contention of the learned Government Pleader in the Executing
Court is that the Government filed an appeal against the Award dated
19.09.2016 in L.A.O.P.No.51 of 2012. The said appeal was filed after lapse
of more than 6 years. The said appeal was filed with a delay condonation
petition. The High Court did not stay the execution of the Award.
Considering the same, the Executing Court by Order dated 06.07.2022
ordered for attachment of the property sought in E.P.No.511 of 2019 by
05.08.2022.
08. On careful consideration of the material available on record and the
reason assigned by the Executing Court for allowing the Execution Petition,
this Court do not find any illegality and irregularity in the order dated
06.07.2022 in E.P.No.511 of 2019 in LAOP No.51 of 2012. This Court also
noticed the stand of the petitioner in replying to the question asked by the
Executing Court as to the possibility of payment of award amount, the
Executing Court could not get any positive answer for payment of the award
amount in the near future. This shows the petitioner is not taking any steps
to satisfy the Award passed by the Civil Court on 19.09.2016 even after
lapse of 6 years.
09. This Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that an appeal preferred against the Award dated
19.09.2016 in L.A.O.P.No.51 of 2012 is pending before this Court and in
view of the pendency of the appeal, requested to stall the execution
proceedings including the attachment passed by the Executing Court on
06.07.2022. Admittedly, the appeal was filed with a delay of more than 6
years. Filing of an appeal with a delay of 6 years itself shows the
considerable degree of procedural red tape in taking action to satisfy the
Award. This Court has to consider that the accrued right or the adverse
consequences to the respondents is also to be kept in mind. This Court
cannot lost sight of the fact that the physical possession of the land of the
respondents was taken away by the petitioner on 19.01.2006 and the
respondents, who lost their lands, did not receive the compensation for the
last 16 years. In view of the same, in our opinion, mere pendency of the
appeal, which was filed with a delay of more than 6 years against the Award
of the Civil Court, is not a ground to stall the Execution Proceedings or to
interfere into the order passed by the Executing Court for attachment.
10. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the order
passed by the Executing Court, and as such, the present Civil Revision
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall
stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
Dt. 05.08.2022
eha
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1511 of 2022
Dt. 05-08-2022
eha
