THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3350 OF 2006 DATED:07.04.2011 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Addanki. .... PETITIONER And Kari Venkateswarlu (died) & 4 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 31.03.2006, in E.P.No.17 of 2000 in L.O.P.No.50 of 1988 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, wherein the Execution Petition filed by the respondents herein under Order XXI Rule 11 (2) CPC for realization of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of the immovable properties of the judgment-debtor, was ordered directing the judgment-debtor to pay Rs.5,01,719.69 ps to the decree-holder by accepting the calculation memo, dated 13.04.2004, filed by the decree-holder. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Both parties filed calculation memos before the Execution Court. According to the petitioner-judgment- debtor a sum of Rs.3,58,916/- alone was due whereas the respondent-decree-holder claimed that a sum of Rs.5,01,729.69 ps was due. The difference arose on account of the interest payable on the additional market value and solatium. Petitioner-judgment-debtor filed calculation memo calculating the interest only on the land value but not on the additional market value and solatium. 4. It is well settled that the land holder is entitled for interest on the additional market value and also solatium in view of the decision of the apex Court reported in SUNDER v. UNION OF INDIA [1] 5. The Execution Court therefore accepted the contention of the decree-holder and directed payment of interest on the additional market value and also solatium. There is no dispute regarding the amount mentioned towards land value, additional market value, solatium and also the periods for which the interest is payable at 9% or 15% as the case may be. The Execution Court however directed the judgment-debtor to pay Rs.5,01,729.69 ps, the amount shown in the calculation memo filed by the decree-holder, before the said Court. 6. While admitting the Civil Revision Petition, this Court by order, dated 10.11.2006, directed the petitioner-judgment-debtor to deposit Rs.4,50,000/- by the end of November, 2006 while granting interim stay. It is stated that the said interim order has been complied with and the amounts have been deposited. Fresh calculation memos have been filed by both sides in the Civil Revision Petition by way of a comparative table giving credit to the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- deposited on 30.11.2006 in pursuance of the interim order. In the said memos petitioner-decree-holder has shown that excess amount of Rs.81,420/- was deposited whereas the respondent-decree-holder has shown that still an amount of Rs.95,000/- is due. In view of the judgment of the apex Court in Sunder’s case referred to supra, judgment-debtor is entitled for interest on the additional market value and also solatium and the contention of the petitioner-decree-holder to the contra is untenable. Thus, accepting the calculation memo filed by the respondent-decree-holder in the Civil Revision Petition, it is held that still an amount of Rs.95,000/- is due and payable by the petitioner-judgment-debtor to the respondent-decree-holder. Having regard to the fact that the acquisition is more than 35 years old, petitioner- judgment-debtor is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, respondent-decree-holder would be at liberty to pursue with the execution of the decree. 7. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th April, 2011. Tsy [1] AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3516