THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 330 TO 338, 340 TO 342, 349 TO 360 of 2011 Date of Order:18.02.2011 Between: M.Kamala Devi and others ..Petitioners and Land Acquisition Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudiwada. ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 330 TO 338, 340 TO 342, 349 TO 360 of 2011 COMMON ORDER :- These revisions by the Land Acquisition Officer and the claimants can be disposed of at the admission stage by this common order. Both the learned counsel argued that the matters have to be remitted to the lower court to dispose of the E.Ps. in terms of the orders passed by this Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer v. Koka Suryanarayana Rao and others[1]. Facts, which give rise to filing of these revisions, are briefly stated as under: - An extent of Acs.44-57 cents of agricultural lands of Billapadu village of Agraharam Mandal in Krishna District belonging to the claimants, were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) on 13.01.1985. Possession of the same was taken by the Government due to urgency on 19.01.1985. The Land Acquisition Officer by order, dated 18.03.1985, fixed the compensation for the lands acquired at Rs.30,000/- per acre with Solatium and additional market value from the date of notification till the date of taking possession i.e., from 13.01.1985 to 19.01.1985 and awarded interest at 9% per annum on the compensation awarded and also Solatium. On reference being made to the civil Court at the instance of the claimants, the civil Court by a common order, dated 20.03.1991, enhanced the compensation by Rs.10,000/- and fixed the same at Rs.40,000/- per acre, without any reference about the interest payable on the Solatium and enhanced compensation. Questioning the enhancement so made, the claimants as well as the Land Acquisition Officer preferred appeals to this Court and this Court by judgment, dated 19.02.1998, enhanced the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.50,000/- per acre by allowing the claimants’ appeals and dismissed the appeals preferred by the Government. Questioning the said enhancement, the claimants carried the matter in further appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1231- 1242 of 1999, whereas the Land Acquisition Officer filed Civil Appeal Nos.3120-3132 and 6525 of 1999. The Supreme Court by judgment, dated 14.09.2004, while modifying the judgment of this Court, further enhanced the compensation by determining the market value at Rs.60,000/- per acre in stead of Rs.50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits on the basis of the market value so determined and accordingly, allowed the appeals preferred by the claimants and dismissed the appeals preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer. On dismissal of the Civil Appeals, the claimants filed various E.Ps for execution of the decree, in which the Land Acquisition Officer filed E.As., to accept the calculation memos filed by the Government, dated 17.04.2006, stating that the claimants are paid excess amounts than what they are entitled, whereas the claimants filed counter stating calculation memos filed earlier on 04.10.2005 has been accepted and the same has to be realized. The learned executing court dismissed the E.As., filed by the Government stating that the calculation so made by the Government in the two calculation memos are totally in variance; that the Government is responsible for non-payment of the amounts to the decree holder; that the Government is not entitled to adjust all the payments towards principal and it is estopped in doing so in view of the earlier order by the Court, dated 13.02.1999. On dismissing the E.As, the lower Court closed the E.Ps., as the Assistant Government Pleader represented that the Government deposited excess amounts, granting liberty to the decree holder to file fresh E.Ps. with calculation memos, if any amount is due. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the E.As., the Land Acquisition Officer filed the present revisions and against the closing of the E.Ps., the claimants filed revisions. It is not in dispute that on passing the award, the Land Acquisition Officer will pay the awarded amount under different heads i.e., market value of the acquired land, Solatium payable and interest will be calculated on the market value and Solatium. It is fairly well settled that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits and that they are entitled to calculate the interest not only on the enhanced compensation but also on 30% Solatium and additional market value. Half of the amount deposited pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court pending the appeals can be adjusted under various heads as directed by this Court. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower court in dismissing the E.As and closing the E.Ps are set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower court to decide the E.Ps. afresh in the light of the directions issued by this Court in the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer’s case (1 supra). Both the parties are permitted to file fresh calculation memos in respect of adjustment of enhanced compensation, which has to be decided by the executing Court. On both the parties filing fresh calculation memos within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the executing Court shall decide the same within two months thereafter. It is needless to say that the reference court has to consider the award of interest in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in para 54 of the judgment in Gurupreet Singh v. Union of India[2] for payment of interest basing upon the decree passed by the reference Court or by the appellate Court. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J February 18, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. by ten days {B/o} Lmv [1] 2010(3) ALT 218 [2] 2006(8) SCC 457