The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the orders dated 08. 04. 2025 passed in E. P. No.4712012 in LAOP No.244t1987 on the file of the senior civil Judge- cum- Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapalli. I l' .EW'*:/ lA NO: 3 OF 2025: BETWEEN: '1 . Muthyam Agaiah (died), (died) 2. Muthyam Ravinder Goud, S/o. Late Agaiah, Aged about 48 yrs , Occ: Agriculture R/o. Julapalli Village of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District 3. Muthyam Laxmi, Wo. Late Agaiah, Aged about B0 yrs , Occ House Hold, R/o. Julapalli Village of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. Petitione rs/Respondents'1 to 3 AND

1. The NTPC Ltd., Jyothinagar, Rep by its General Manager. No..l Resp ond enUPetitio ne r

2. The Specral Deputy Collector, L A. O (NIPC), L. A. Unit (RDO), Peddapallr ...RESPONDENT/Respondent No.4 Petition under Section 151 C PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate stay orders passed in CRP No 1768 ol 2025 dt.10lo,l2025. Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRl. AYYAGARI JAYASHREE Counsel for the Respondents : SRI ARAVINDU MATURI (6123) The Gourt made the following: ORDER HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.l768 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER l{eard Mr. Radha Krishna Murthy I.V., leamed counsel representing Ms. A.Jayashree, learned counsel for the petitioncr and Mr. Aravindu Maturi, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. This revision is filed under Section - I 1 5 of C. P.C challenging the order dated 08.04.2025 in Il.P. No.47 of 2012 in LAOI']No.244 of 1987

3. LAOP No.244 of 1987 is a reference under Section - l8 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act, 1894') on the letter dated 28.02.1986 seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and the Sendhi Trees of the petitioners therein situatcd at Allure Vitlage, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. Thc same was decreed on 17.06.1996 by the leamed Subordinatc Judge at Peddapalli enhancing the compensation lrom Rs.4,000/- per acrc to Rs.7,500/- per acre in respect of dry and wet lands admeasuring Acs.6.l0 guntas in Survey Nos.127, 128, 133, 136, 140 and 125 of Alluru Village. With regard to sendhi trees, the same is enhanced 2 KT-, ] CRP No l76E ol1025 from Rs.80i- to Rs.100/- per big sendhi tree, from Rs.l0/- to Rs.50/- per medium size scndhi tree and fiom Rs.0.25ps. to Rs.5/- per small scndhi tree. Solatium was iLlso awarded and directed the Referring Officer to pay solatium (@, 30%, interest @ 9o/o for a period o1' one year from the date ol taking possession i.e., 03.05.1983 and @ Rs.15ol, per annum liom ,,he remaining period titt the datc ol realization on thc cnhanccd amount as directed in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 ol'the decree

4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein being legal heirs ofdeceascd respondent No.1 filed Execution Petition vide F..P. No.47 of 2012 lor execution of the said award and decree. Vide order dated 08.04.2025. learned Executing Court considering the t'act that it cannot authenticate the mathematical calculation submitted by the decree- holders, as such, it has directed its office to verify the record and certifu the correctness of the calculations as stated by the dccrce holders. As per the calculation memo filed by the decree holders is in accordance with law, learne,l Dxecuting Cou( directed its office to verify the calculation. interest and as to whethcr claim made b1.the claimants is correct or not. 'l hen, leamed Executing Court directed its 3 KL. ] CRP No 1768 of2025 office to verifi 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.P. No.47 of 2012 filed affidavit stating that thc offrce of Executing Court did not permit him to verify the calculations submitted by the decree holders as directed by learned Exccuting Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.47 of 2012. In paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit, he has specifically statcd 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 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 verifuing 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., leamed counsel representing leamed counsel for thc petitioner herein, would submit '!! .,*,1 -''It 1B?* ,$1" :{*;i,.-..J.i i, 4 KI', J CRI'No I768 of2025 that the ofllcc of the Executing Court did not put up the note by

17.04.2025 in compliance with the order dated 08.04.2025

7. Whcreas, leamed r:ounsel appearing lor respondent Nos.2 and 3 - decree holders filed counter and vacate stay application contending that calculations u,ere mentioned in thc affidavit itself The petitione r herein - judgmr:nt dcbtor did not compl] u,il-h the award and decree in LAOP No.24,1 of 1987. The mattcr rvcnt 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 fllcd the present revision and obtained interim orders

8. Thc alorcsaid rival submissions would rcveal that thc dispute is with regard to solatium and interest. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspects, more particularly, calculations filed hy the decree- holders, the Iixecuting Court u,as not in a position to authcnticate it, therefore, it has directed its offlce to verifu the record. certily the correctness of the calculations as stated bv the decree holdcrs in the presence ofboth the counsel

9. It is the specific contention of leamed counscl for the petitioner that the offrce of lixecuting Court did not pcrmit leamed )( 5 KL, J CRP No l76lt of2025 counsel for thejudgment debtors to veri$, the calculations filed by the decree holders in terms of order dated 08.04.2025 in E,.P. No.47 of

10. Mr. Thakur Ravinder Singh, leamed counsel for judgment debtors in E.P. No.47 of 2012 filed affidavit stating that the office of Executing Court did not permit him to veriS the calculations submitted by the decree holders as directed by leamed Executing Cotrt vide order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P, No.47 of 2012. Having directed its office to verily the calculations fited by the decree-holders in the presence of both the counsel, learned Executing Court should have verified as to whether its olfice afforded opportunity to lcamed counsel for the petitioner to verifo the calculations. In the light ofthe same, the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by leamed Executing Court in E.P. No.47 of 2012 in LAOP No.244 of 1987 is liable to be set aside'

11. In vicw of the aforesaid discussion, this Civil Rcvision 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.47 of 2012 in LAOP No.244 ';:) &TEi ';#; 4B:rf +;:;t - 6 KI,. J CRP No 1768 of2025 ol 1987. The matter is remanded back to the Executins Court with a direction to permit Mr. Thak ur Ravinder Singh, leamed counsel lor thc judgment debtors, to verifu the calculations fited by the decree holders and also leamed courrsel lbr the decree holders to verifv the thereafter, the office ofthe Executing Court shall put up a note lbr the purpose of passing neccssary orders. On receipt of the said rcport/note b1. the officc, Iearncd Executing Court shall decidc I:.P No.47 of 2012 strictly in acc,ordance rvith law and pass a rcasoncd

12. As stated above, the EP is of the ycar 20 12, leamed Executing Court shall dispose of the said E.P. within a period of four (04) weeks from the date ol rcceipt of copy of this order. In rhe 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. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR t D '\), \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapalli 2. One CC to SRl. AYYAGARI JAYASHREE Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI Aravindu Matur , Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1 110712025 iHE.S T4 ( c)o 9. :1* 2 O JUt trATCi -7 (;) J J*.\ * ORDER CRP.No.1768 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRP