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.46/2012 in LAOP No.210l1987 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge- cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapalli. lA NO: 3 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

1. Muthyam Agaiah (died), No Address 2. Muthyam Ravinder Goud, S/o. Late Agaiah R/o. Julapalli Village of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District

3. Muthyam Laxmi, W/o. Late Agaiah, R/o. Julapalli Village of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 3 AND

1. The NTPC Ltd, Jyothinagar, Rep.by its General Manager

2. Special Deputy Collector, L.A.O (NTPC), L.A. Unit (RDO), Peddapalli ...,. Petitioner/Respondent ..... Respondent/Respondent No.4 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 vacate stay orders passed in CRP No 1770 oI 2025 daled 1010612025. Counsel for the Petitioner SRI. AYYAGARI JAYASH REE Counsel forthe Respondents : SRI ARAVINDU MATURI The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN CIVTL REVISIO N PETITTON No.1770 OF 2025 ORALORDER I{eard Mr. Radha Krishna Murthy I'V', leamcd counsel representing Ms. A.Jayashrce, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aravindu Mahrri, leamed counsel for respondent Nos'2 and 3'

2. This revision is filed under Section - I 15 of C I' C' challenging the order datcd 08.04.2025 in E P' No'46 of 2012 in I-AOP No.2l0 of 1987.

3. LAOP No.210 ol 1987 is a reference under Section - l8 ol the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 (for short 'Act, 1894'), seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and the Sendhi Trees ol the petitioner therein situated at Allure Villagc, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. The same was decreed on 17 '06'1996 by the leamed Subordinate Judge at Peddapalti enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,000/- per acre to Rs'8,000/- per acrc in respect ofdry land, from Rs.8,000/- per acre to Rs'12,000/- per acre in respect of the wet land admeasure Acs.14'20 guntas and Acs'1'14 guntas, respectively. With regard to sendhi trees, the same is 2 KL, J CRP No 1770 of2025 enhanced to Rs.100i- per big sendhi tree, Rs.50i- per medium size sendhi trec and Rs.5/- per small sendhi tree. Solatium was also awarded and directed the Referring Officer to pay sotatium @ 3O%, interest @ 9oh for a periotl of one year from the date of taking possession i.e., 03.05.1983 and @ Rs.15% per annum from the remaining period till thc date ofrealization on the enhanced amount.

4. Respondent Nos.2 a.nd 3 herein being legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1 fited Execut.ion Petition vide F,.P. No.46 of 2012 for execution of the said award a.nd decree. Vide order dated 08.04.2025, leamed 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 pcr the calculation memo filed by thc decree holders is in accordance with law, leamed Executing Court directed its office to verifu the calculation, interesi and as to whether the claim made by the claimants is correct or not. then, leamed Executing Court directed its office to veriff the calculations submitted by the decree holders in the presence of both counscl ffi'.'..t+ jz H.W li'Iji '11.ffi' it.. r+li'- I *.,i... 3 KL, I CRP No.l770 of2025

5. Mr. Thakur Ravinder Singh, learned counsel for judgment debtors in E,.P. No.46 of 2012 fited afhdavit stating that the office of Executing Court did not permit him to verify the calculations submitted by the decree holders as directed by lgarned Executing Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.46 of 2012. In paragraph No.3 ofthe said affidavit, he has specifically stated that the olfice of Executing Court neither issued noticc to him nor permitted him to attend lor verification. On the other hand, they have submitted the note, upon which the EP was allowed. Thus, thc olI-rce 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 Ii.P. stating that the EP is allowed by verifoing the calculations, since the EP is of20l2, 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 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. I 4 KL, J CRP No 1770 of2025

7. Whereas, leamed counsel appcaring for respondent Nos.2 and 3 - decrce holders filed counter and vacate stay application contending that calculations rvcre mentioned in the allidavit itself. The petitioner herein - judgmcnt debtor did not comply with the award and decree in LAOP No.210 of 1987. The mafter rvent 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 frled the present revision and obtained interim orderc.

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 partiotlarly, calculations filed by the decree- holders, the Executing Court was not in a position to authenticate it, therefore, it has directcd its ol1lce to verify the record, certiff the correotness of the calculations as stated by the decrec holders in the presence ofboth the counsel. 9 . It is the specific contention of leamed counsel for the petitioner herein that the office of Executing Court did not permit leamed counscl for the judgment debtors to verifu thc calculations 5 }<L, J CRP No.l770 ol 2025 filed by the decree holders in terms of order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.46 of 2012.

10. Mr. Thakur Ravinder Singh, leamed counsel for judgment debton in E.P. No.46 of 2012 filed aflidavit stating that the office of Executing Court did not permit him to veri! the calculations submitted by the decree holders as directed by learned Executing Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 in E.P. No.46 of 2012. Having directed its office to verifo 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 leamed counsel for the petitioner to verif! the calculations. In the light olthe same, the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by leamed Executing Court in E.P. No.46 of 2012 in LAOP No.2l0 of 1987 is tiable to be set aside. I l. 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.46 of 2012 in LAOP No.210 of 1987. The matter is remanded back to the Executing Court with a \ rir . :1! li:r&-i i;};i:.: r *i lil !]ril: ti.p ii ,P)lrt :j - :.1 itr*,.'.. 6 KI-.I CRI)No I 770 ot202i direction to permit Mr. Thakur Ravinder Singh, lcamed counsel for the judgment debtors, to veril_v the calculations filed by the decree holders and also leamed counsel fbr the decree holdcrs to vcri$, the same. Therealtcr, the oflicc t,f the Executing Court shall put up a note for the purpose of passing necessary orders. On receipt of the said report/note bv the office, learned Executing Court shalt decide E.p. No.46 of 2012 strictly in acr:ordancc with law and pass a reasoned

12. As stated above. the Ilp is of thc ycar 2012, leamed Executing Court shall dispose of the said E.p. within a period of four (04) weeks from the date ol receipt of copy of this order. In the circumstances of the cases, tht:re shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pcnding in the revision shall stand closed. Sd/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// , --- --l t SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Srnior Civil Judge-Cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapalli 2. One CC to SRl. AYYAGARI JAYASHREE Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI ARAVINDU MATURI,(6123) Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies PSL b ,-------iEE!w! llil;rlB*E:i$5tfiiib*! iri5i!*s&E tEGl!- Ct i. TllE 5 t4 o(*) 2 d JUt 2fl6 z * (),- + ---:='-:- HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER CRP.No.1770 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRP