The High Court · 2025

petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all f u rthe-r-proceed ings in pursuance of the orders dated 0g.04 2025 passed in E.P.No.45/2012 in LAOP Nq.96/1988 on thefile of the Senior Civit Judge_cum_ Asst. Sessions Judge. Peddapalli. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. AYYAGARI JAYASHREE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ARAVINDU MATURI (6i23) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTTCE IC LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. L 769 0F 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. Radha Krishna Murthy I V'' Ieamed counsel representing Ms. A.Jayashree, learned counscl lor the petitioner and Mr. Aravindu Maturi, Ieamed 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 n LAOP No.96 of 1988.

3. LAOP No.96 of 1988 is a reference undcr Section - 18 of thc Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act' 1894') on thc letter datcd 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' 'fhe same was decreed on 05.06.1996 by the leamed Subordinate Judge at I'}eddapalli granting compensation of Rs 8,000i- 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 - -'.1 2 KIJ CRP No 1769 of2.l2i was also awarded and directed the Referring Officer to pay solatium aA 3O%, interest @ 9%o for a period of one year from the date of taking posscssion 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.:15 of 2012 fot execution of the said award and deqee. Vide order dated 08.04.2025, leamed Executing Court considering the fact that it cannot authenticate the mathematical calculation submitted by the decrce- holders, as such, it has directed its office to verifu the record and certi$ the correctness of the calculations as stated by the decree holders. As per the calculation memo hled by the decree holders is in accordance with law, leamed Executing Court directed its office to t-'Y verifu the calculation, interest and as to whether claim made by the claimants is correct or not. Then, leamed Executing Court directed its olfice to verily the calculations submitted by the decree holders in the presence of both counsel

5. Mr. Thakur Ravinder Singh, leamed counsel for judgment debtors in E.l) No.45 of 2012 filed affrdavit stating that the olfice of J KI,. J CRI':.{o I?6e ol202j Executing Court did not permit him to verify the calculations submitted by the decree holders as directed by lcamed lixccuting Cowt vide order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.45 of 2012. In paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit, he has spccifically stated that the office of Executing Court neither issued notice to him nor pcrmitted him to attend for verification. On the other hand, they have submitted the note, upon which the EP was allowed. Thus, the olfice of Executing Court has not followed the directions issucd by thc Executing Court. Vide order dated 08.04.2025, the Ijxecuting Court allowed the said E.P. stating that the EP is allowed b1 verilying the calculations, since the EP is of 2012, office was directed to put up the noteby 17.04.2025

6. Mr. Radha Krishna Murthy I.V., lcamed counsel representing leamed 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, leamed counsel appearing for rcspondcnt Nos.2 and 3 - decree holders filed counter and vacate stay application contending that calculations were mentioned in thc affidavit itselL !t9 -t,- al1 e"il .- \ --' - | 4 KL. J L'RP No 1769 of2025 Thc pctitioner herein - judgment debtor did not comply rr,ith the award and dccree in I-AOP No.96 of 1988. The matter went up to thc Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus. the petitioner herein is trying drag on the proccedings. In the said course of action, it has filed the present revision and ohtained interim ord,ers.

8. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the dispute is r.r,ith regard to solatium and interest. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspects, more particularly, calculations filed by the decree- holders. the Executing Court rvas not in a position to authenticate it, therefore, it has directcd its office to veri$ the record, ccrti! 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 leamed counsel lor the pctitioner hcrein that thc office of Executing Court did not permit leamed counsel fbr the judgment debtors to verifu the calculations filed by the decree holden in terms of order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.45 ol20l2. I 0. Mr. Thakur Ravinder Singh, leamed counsel fbr judgment dehors in E.P. No.45 of 2012 filed affidavit staring rhat the office of 5 K1.. J CRP No 1769 ol 202i Executing Court did not permit him to verifu the calculations submitted by the decree holders as directed by [earned Executing Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.45 of 2012. Having directed its office to verifu the calculations filed by the decree holders in the presence of both the counsel, leamed Executing Court should have verified as to whether its office afforded opportunity to the leamed counsel for the petitioner to veriff the calculations. In thc light of the same, the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by [earncd Executing Court in E.P. No.45 of 2012 in LAOP No.96 of 1988 is liable to be set aside. I 1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Civil Revision \ Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by leamed 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, leamed counscl for the judgment debtors, to veriff the calculations filed by the decree holders and also leamed counsel for the decree holders to verify the same. Thereaftel the office of the Executing Court shall put up a note for the purpose of passing necessary orders. On receipt of the said l:.; . dri,,.,, 6 KL. J CRP No.l769 o12025 report/note by the otfice, leamed Executing Court shall decide E.P' No.45 of 2012 strictty in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order.

12. As stated above, the EP is of the year 2012, leamed Executing Court shall dispose of the said E.P. within a period of four (04) weeks lrom the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the circumstances ofthe cases. there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, mis6ellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR l, , .. l'.) 1- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapalli. 2. One CC to SRI AYYAGARI JAYASHREE Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI ARAVINDU MATURI (6123), Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ry. ABK HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER CRP.No.1769 of 2025 /. () ,.) t ':r-- r lii i.- ( 25JUL2M 2 PAT * ALLOWING THE CRP 6