HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.737 OF 2008 Dated 10-11-2014 Between:
The Special Deputy Collector, L.A.O. Defence General, Hyderabad.
And:
...Petitioner.
M.B.Hanumantha Rao (died) and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.737 OF 2008 ORDER:
This revision is by State represented by Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Defence General, Hyderabad against orders dated 21-9-2007 on the file of X Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The Government acquired lands from the respondents and some others and Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 16-7-1982 and subsequently, the matter was referred to Civil Court and thereafter, there was an appeal to this court on the order passed by the civil court in the reference. Those matters have reached finality and at the time of execution of the award, some dispute arose and the revision petitioner herein approached this court in C.R.P.No.3092 of 2007 and this court by order dated 13-7-2007 disposed of the C.R.P. directing both parties to file fresh calculation memos before the court concerned and thereafter directed the trial court to pass appropriate orders taking the calculation memos filed by both parties into consideration and fixed some time for the trial court. In accordance with the direction in C.R.P.No.3092 of 2007, learned X Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad passed an order stating that calculation memo filed by Decree Holders 2, 3, 6 to 9 is correct and rejected the claim of the J.Dr. and 4th D.Hr. and fixed the amount due to the decree holder Nos.2, 3, 6 to 9 at Rs.50,22,642/-as on 10-8-2007.
Heard both sides.
Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration contended that the Executing Court has not taken into consideration that the D.Hr.s are not entitled for interest and solatium and additional market value as per the judgment in C.C.C.A.No.64/1986/31-3-1992. It is also contended that the Executing Court has not properly calculated the amount and committed error.
On the other hand, advocate for respondents/D.Hrs. contended that the calculation accepted by the Executing Court are in accordance with the orders in C.C.C.A.No.60 of 86 and 64 of 86 whereunder this court observed that by virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it must be deemed that possession of land under Land Acquisition Act had been taken on 15-7-
1982 and from that date onwards, the benefits under the Act including interest, solatium and additional market value have to be given to the D.Hr.
He further contended that the trial court has calculated point wise and gave a detailed account for the difference in the calculation made by J.Dr. and the D.Hrs. and finally fixed the amount at Rs.50,22,642/- and that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Executing Court. He also further submitted that even the claim of 4th D.Hr. is rejected by Executing Court after making detailed calculation.
I have perused the material papers and the order dated 21-9-2007.
The Executing Court has prepared a comparative table with the calculations made by the Judgment Debtor and Decree Holders and then answered all the points with reference to the difference shown in the table.
As seen from the order, the difference between the claimant and J.Dr. and D.Hrs. is in respect of difference of solatium and additional market value and interest thereon. In the award, the Land Acquisition Officer has granted only 15% of the solatium whereas this court in C.C.C.A.No.60 of 1986 and 64 of 1986 clearly held that claimants are entitled for solatium at 30%. Further in the award, the Land Acquisition Officer has not given any amount towards additional market value and this court held that the claimants are entitled for additional market value at 12%.
As seen from the material, now the only difference is in respect of remaining 15% of the solatium and 12% of the additional market value and interest on these two components. The learned Trial Judge meticulously calculated each item point wise and gave a clear account for the amount arrived by him at Rs.50,22,642/-.
On a scrutiny of the material, I do not find any illegality committed by the trial court nor there is any wrong calculation in arriving at Rs.50,22,642/- payable as on 10-8-2007. As rightly pointed out by advocate for respondents, it is a well reasoned order and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Executing Court which is based on the directions of this court in C.C.C.A.Nos.60 of 1986 and 64 of 1986.
For these reasons, I am of the view that the revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 10-11-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.737 OF 2008 Dated 10-11-2014