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
