The Mandal Revenue Officer v. 1. Gousia Begum

12. Mittapally Sridhar, S/ o. Anjaiah, Aged about 49 years '13. Mittapally Srikanth, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 42 years (LRs of deceased Dr No. 6 M. Anjaiah) All Residents of Karimnagar Proper) ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thr, ;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc r ( may be pleased to pass orders Stay of all further proceedings in EP No 49 c 2018 against in OP No 20 of 200'1 , orders dated 19/06/2025 on the file of )rincipal Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr RAJESH KUMAR HEROR, Advocate representing Mr. GP FOR I RBITRATION Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. CHINTHALAPHANI A!r Nl REDDY, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER o IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PEIITION No.2746 of 2025 DATED: 26.1L.2025 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), LAO, Ramagundam. ...Petitioner Gousia Begum and 12 others AND ...Respondents ORDER: This Revision Petition is hled assailtng the Order dated 1g.06.2025 in E.P.No.49 of 2O18 in O.P.No.20 of 200 I, on the file of Iearned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, whereby and whereunder the Executing Court has passed Order for attachmcnt of property i.e., car belongs to the District Collector.

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for petitioner and Ms.Avani Reddy, learned Counsel for respondents

3. karned Government Pleader ior Arbitration w'ould submit that Government has acquired certain lands for construction of 2"d SLSR Reservoir and passed award on 13.05.1994, determining the compensation to be paid in respect of lands acquired for the said purpose, including the lands belongs to the rcspondents herein; that 2 having not satisfied with the award amount de erntined by the I-and Acquisition Officer (LAO), respondents hled O.l, No.20 of 2021, befot e: the learned Senior Civil Judge, peddapalli and he samc rvas aLlo.r.,ed uide Ordcr dated 31.O7.2012, enhancing t re compcr-rsittion rJ Rs.3,50,000i - per acre along with statutor\ benellts. Sincc thr petitioncr did not pay the compensation amou rt in terms of decre,: passed irr O.P.No.20 of 2021, respondents file: E.p_No.104 of 2012, lor execution of decree passed in O.p.No.20 ol I t)2I and on l)a,\.mcn t of decreetal amount by the petitioner, E.p. r r. 1O4 of 2012, wa:; closed. Consequently, respondents hled E.p.Nr.19 ol 201g, claiming further amount of Rs. 19,16, l35/ -. 4 2( 2O itself, therefore. Learned Government preader for Arbitrati ,n further submitted that petitioner herein deposited the entire amoL nt as per the decrec passed in O.P.No.20 of 2001 in rhe E.P.No.49 of 2018, ought to have been clis nissed. Fle furthcr submitted that the calculation memo submitte J by the respondenl,s along with the Execution petition is incorrec[ and the trxecuting Court without considering the objections rais,: I b1r the petitioner, erroneously passed Orders for Attachment of I rr belonging to the District collector. Learned Government pleader i r Arbitratio. praced on record, the calculation memo, as per which r,he entire decreetal amount has already been deposited by the petili )ner on 24.O7.2O2O --@-- Y 3 and no amount is payable by the petitioner in O.P.No.2O of 20O1 and thus, prayed to allorv the revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner herein has not filed calculation memo as to how the entire decreetal amount has been paid and according to the respondents, petitioner has to pay Rs. 19,16,135/- and the detailed calculation memo to that effect has been filed before the E.P Court. Since the pc[iLioner failed to satisfy lhe decree passed in O.P.No.2O of 2OO1, tr.P Court has rightly passed the Order for Attachment of Car belonging to the Dis[rict Collector. Learned Counsel for respondents placed on record, lhe Order

6. dated I 1.O7.2025 passed in C.R.P.No. l77O of 2025, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court in similar circumstances set aside the Order and remanded the matter back to the Executing Court for fresh adjudication and further directed the Executing Court to dispose of the E.P within a period of four weeks. I-earned Counsel for respondents prayed to pass similar Order in the present rvrit petition also. \

7. It is the specific contention of the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration that according to their calculation, entire decreetal amount was already deposited and petitioner was not given an opportunity before the Executing Court to demonstrate that decreeLal -W 4 \ r1 I I amount has already been paid and no amou: s arc payable b), the petitioner. Holever, as per the learned Cotr rsel for respondents;, dccree holder is still entitled to Rs. 19,16,135,, .

8. Considering the submissions made by tlr learned Government Pleader for thc pctitioner and learned Counsel .or respondents, this Civil Rer.rsion petitlon is allowed and the i I pugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed in E.p.No.49 of 201g is set : ;ide, with a liberrv kr the petitioner to submit calculation memo I r:lor(: the ExecutLng Court, giving details as to how the entire <i, creetal amount has alrcady been paid by the petitioner/Judgment c :btor. On such filing of calculation memo, the Executing Court shir i consider the same and pass appropriate Orders duly giving oppo l,unity of hearing to the dccree holder as well as Judgment Debtor Since the Execution Petition is of the year 201g, the Executing Cour ;hall make endeavor to dispose of the same within a period of two ( 2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There slLi I[ be no order as to Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sl r ll stand closed //TRUE COPYII sD/- AHI/I :D ABDULLA KHAN Tti srANT REGTSTRAR . i SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 u The file of the Senior Civil Judge, at peddapalli. One CC to Mr representing Advocate topuBiJESH Two CD Copies KUMAR F I ROR, Advocate -@ *HIGH COURT- LNA, J DATED: 2611112025 ORDER CRP.No.2746 ot 2025 . --- - -_\'. ttB 21i26 I t' I / Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petitior is Allowed E