LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, A.P. Vs RAVI SANTOSH REDDY (D) BY LRS.
Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,ASHOK BHUSHAN
Case number: C.A. No.-005647-005647 / 2006
Diary number: 136 / 2002
Advocates: S.. UDAYA KUMAR SAGAR Vs
Page 1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5647 OF 2006
The Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Ravi Santosh Reddy(D) by L.Rs. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed against the final order dated
13.04.2001 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No. 928 of 1998
wherein the High Court dismissed the revision filed by
the appellant herein against the order dated
22.10.1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge at
1
Page 2
Bhongir, Nalgonda Dist. In E.A. No. 41 of 1997 in E.P.
No. 34 of 1993 in O.P. No.7 of 1987.
2) Few facts need mention for the disposal of the
appeal, which involves short point.
3) The appellant-State acquired 53 acres of land
pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as “the Act”) on 11.05.1978. This notification
included the land belonging to the respondents’
predecessors measuring around 13 acres 18 guntas
situated in Nagireddy village Palli in District Nalgonda
in AP. It was acquired for the purpose of laying down
New Broad Gauge line.
4) On 20.03.1980, the Land Acquisition Officer
(LAO) by his Award No. 12 of 1980 divided the land
into three categories and awarded the compensation to
all the landowners whose lands had been acquired
including the respondents’ predecessor at the rate of
2
Page 3
Rs.1100/-, Rs.1200/- and Rs.1700/- per acre
respectively.
5) The respondents’ predecessor then filed reference
in Civil Court (subordinate Judge, Bhongir) under
Section 18 of the Act being O.P. No.7 of 1987 for
re-determination of the compensation. This reference
was referred to Lok Adalat for mutual settlement.
6) On 07.12.1988, in pursuance of the order passed
by the Lok Adalat, the subordinate Judge at Bhongir
passed an award and enhanced the compensation
payable to the respondents. In terms of the award, the
respondents were entitled to claim a sum of Rs.
6,42,681/- by way of compensation for his land from
the State.
7) The respondents’ predecessor then filed the
execution petition being E.P. No. 34 of 1993 for
realization of the entire decreetal amount in terms of
the said award. During the pendency of the petition,
3
Page 4
the respondents’ predecessor died and his legal
representatives, i.e., present respondents were brought
on record. By order dated 15.09.1997, the executing
Court bi-party determined the amount payable to the
respondents by the State towards compensation and
issued warrants against the judgment-debtor (State)
for recovery of the interest amount of Rs.50,000/-
and odd as it was found still payable by the State to
the respondents due to delay on their part in paying
the decreetal sum. It is pertinent to mention that this
order was not challenged by the State in higher Courts
and hence it attained finality.
8) However, the State made an application being
E.A. No. 41 of 1997 in E.P. No. 34 of 1993 seeking to
recall the order dated 15.09.1997. By order dated
22.10.1997, the executing court dismissed the said
application made by the State.
4
Page 5
9) Felt aggrieved by this order, the State filed
revision petition before the High Court. By impugned
order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
Against the said order, the State has filed this appeal
by way of special leave before this Court.
10) Heard Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant. Despite notice none
appeared for the respondents.
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant-State and on perusal of the record of the
case, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal. The
impugned order reads as under:
“The only question that arises for consideration in this CRP is as to whether the order dated 15.09.1997, passed in E.P. No. 34 of 1993, directing attachment of the moveables of the petitioner should have been recalled. The order dated 15.09.1997 was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The application seeking recall of the said order was filed on the ground that the decree-holder did not file any calculation memo.
In the opinion of this Court, as rightly observed by this Court, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, if there is any error
5
Page 6
in the order dated 15.09.1997, the same can be rectified by the higher Courts. As the learned trial Judge has not exercised his discretion, this Court does not see any reason to interfere therewith.
For the reasons aforementioned, the CRP is dismissed. No costs.”
12) Mere perusal of the impugned order would go to
show that the reasoning given by the High Court is
just and proper. As rightly held by the High Court, the
proper remedy available to the State in this case was
to challenge the main order dated 15.09.1997. This
order (15.09.1997) was not challenged by the State. It,
therefore, attained finality.
13) What was challenged by the State was an order
dated 22.10.1997 by which the application made by
the State to recall the order dated 15.09.1997 was
dismissed by the executing Court. The executing Court
was, therefore, justified in rejecting this application by
holding that since the order dated 15.09.1997 was not
an ex-parte order, it was binding on the State and the
6
Page 7
same not having been challenged by them had to be
given effect to for realization of decreetal amount from
the State. The High Court was equally justified in
upholding this order of the executing Court by
impugned order.
14) Though order dated 15.09.1997 was never under
challenge in any proceedings at the instance of the
State, yet we perused the said order with a view to find
out its sustainability. We find that the executing Court
found that the State was liable to pay a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards interest due to delayed payment
of decreetal sum for the period mentioned therein. It is
for realization of this amount (Rs.50,000/-), the
warrant of attachment had been issued at the instance
of the respondents against the State properties.
15) In our considered opinion, the State
unnecessarily pursued this pity matter to this Court in
this appeal, which does not involve any arguable point
7
Page 8
either on facts or in law nor it involves any point of
public importance and nor it involves any substantial
money claim. What was involved was only the
calculation of payment of interest on the decreetal sum
for a particular period. In this Court also, learned
counsel was unable to show any kind of illegality or
perversity in the said calculation made by the
executing Court while working out the liability of the
State in paying Rs.50,000/- towards interest.
Therefore, it was, in our view, a sheer abuse of
process on the part of the State to pursue a matter in
filing a misconceived appeal against an interim order,
which we do not approve. It is unfortunate that a
genuine claim of the respondents was not satisfied by
the State for such a long time.
16) Be that as it may, we find no merit in this appeal.
It is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-
payable to the respondents.
8
Page 9
17) The State is directed to pay the unpaid decreetal
sum, if any, including the amount, which is the
subject matter of this litigation together with the cost
amount after proper verification within three months
from the date of this order.
.……...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………..................................J. [ASHOK BHUSHAN]
New Delhi, May 18, 2016.
9