IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH (17TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6530 of 2003 Between: Velampalli Veera Satyanarayana Murthy … Petitioner And: Land Acquisition Officer & Special Dy. Collector Peddapuram …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6530 of 2003 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 14.08.2003 in EP No.135 of 1989 in OP No.136 of 1986 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, wherein the petitioner herein was held that he has withdrawn the excess amount of Rs.1303/- and Rs.1,78,426/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. It is not disputed that an extent of Ac.4.75 cents of land belonging to the petitioner in Sy.No.219/1 of Yeleswaram village was acquired by the Government. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.54,622.99 under Award No.9 of 1983 dated 04.01.1984, fixing the market value of the land at Rs.7,000/- per acre. On reference to the civil Court, the compensation was enhanced at Rs.20,000/- per acre in OP No.136 of 1986. The Government preferred appeal in AS No.1929 of 1989 to the High Court and the same was dismissed on 24.04.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner-DHr filed EP for realization of the balance amount. It is not disputed that the petitioner has received Rs.54,623/- under the award. The JDr has deposited Rs.1,89,506/- into court on 30.10.1989 and also Rs.1,78,426/- on 22.05.1996 and the same was withdrawn by the petitioner. It is not known how the JDr came to deposit further sum of Rs.1,78,426/- when there was excess deposit even on the earlier occasion. The contention of the petitioner that the JDr having deposited the amount long back and having permitted withdrawal of the same by the petitioner by way of cheque application is estopped from seeking refund of the excess amount, is untenable. Whenever it comes to the notice of the court that the excess amount has been deposited by the JDr and withdrawn by the DHr, the court is certainly within its authority in directing redeposit of the excess amount, as the DHr cannot be permitted to withdraw more than what is due and payable to him under any circumstances and as such withdrawal of the excess amount would result in the loss to the public exchequer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner/DHr appropriated the amount already paid towards outstanding interest at the first instance and then appropriated the balance towards principal and in that connection he relied upon the decision in ‘Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India[1]’ wherein the apex Court held as follows: “The essential ratio in Prem Nath Kapur, (1996)2 SCC 71, on appropriation being at different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee/decree- holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the decree otherwise directs. Thus the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur is approved on the aspect of appropriation.’ 5. Even if the amount already paid is appropriated towards interest, still there would be excess withdrawal of Rs.1,303/- out of the deposit made on 30.10.1989 and Rs.1,78,426/- which was deposited on 22.05.1996, which the petitioner-DHr is liable to refund. The impugned order holding that the petitioner/DHr has withdrawn excess amount in a sum of Rs.1,303/- and Rs.1,78,426/- is not liable to be interfered with. But however, he shall refund the same with interest at 6% per annum instead of 15% per annum as directed by the lower court. 6. In the result, subject to modification in the interest, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs, __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 17.08.2011 bss [1] (2006) 8 SCC 457