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
