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.1769 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.45 of 2012 in
LAOP No.96 of 1988.
3. LAOP No.96 of 1988 is a reference under Section - 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act, 1894') on the letter dated
16.08.1988, seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired
land and the Sendhi Trees of the petitioner therein situated at Allure
Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. The same was
decreed on 05.06.1996 by the learned Subordinate Judge at Peddapalli
granting compensation of Rs.8,000/- per acre in respect of land
acquired admeasuring Ac.0.33 guntas. With regard to sendhi trees,
the same was enhanced to Rs.100/- per big sendhi tree, Rs.50/- per
medium size sendhi tree and Rs.5/- per small sendhi tree. Solatium
KL, J
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., 08.05.1986 and @ Rs.15% per annum from the
remaining period till the date of realization on the enhanced amount.
4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein being legal heirs of deceased
respondent No.1 filed Execution Petition vide E.P. No.45 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
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.45 of 2012 filed affidavit stating that the office of
KL, J
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.45 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
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.
KL, J
The petitioner herein - judgment debtor did not comply with the award
and decree in LAOP No.96 of 1988. 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 herein that the office of Executing Court did not permit
learned 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.45 of 2012.
10. Mr. Thakur Ravinder Singh, learned counsel for judgment
debtors in E.P. No.45 of 2012 filed affidavit stating that the office of
KL, J
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.45 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 the
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.45 of 2012 in LAOP No.96 of 1988 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.45 of 2012 in LAOP No.96
of 1988. 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
KL, J
report/note by the office, learned Executing Court shall decide E.P.
No.45 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
