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