IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.499 of 2011 Between: G. Venkat Rami Reddy & another .. Petitioners AND The Land Acquisition Officer .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.499 of 2011 ORDER: The order of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, in C.F.R.No.3510 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.No.304 of 1976, dated 21.12.2010, is the subject of this revision at the instance of the claimants/decree holders. 2. The petitioners claimed to be the sole legal representatives of the original claimant in L.A.O.P.No.304 of 1976 in which an award was passed in Appeal No.636 of 1986 on 05.12.1988 dismissing the appeal against the award of the reference Court and further holding the payment of additional amount, solatium and interest to be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court. The executing Court, considering the precedents cited before it and Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, observed that the claimants had no documentary proof about the earlier execution petition and orders thereon or the claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased claimant, by obtaining a succession certificate. The executing Court also noted that the movable property sought to be attached is not within its jurisdiction and, therefore, on grounds of absence of succession certificate, bar of limitation and absence of territorial jurisdiction, the execution petition was rejected. 3. The petitioners contend in this revision that the executing Court should have sent the execution petition to a Court of competent jurisdiction if it felt that it has no territorial jurisdiction, but could not have rejected the execution petition. The executing Court also could not have insisted on any succession certificate for filing the execution petition. The appellate judgment of this Court was on 05.12.1988 and it is only since the decision of the Apex Court in SUNDER VS. UNION OF INDIA [2001 (5) A.L.D. 136 S.C.], dated 19.09.2001, that the petitioners were vested with a right to execute that part of the decree concerning solatium and interest and, therefore, the execution petition is within time within the meaning of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the petitioners desired the order to be reversed. 4. Heard Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri T. Ramulu, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration. 5. The point for consideration is whether the order of rejection of the execution petition is susceptible to interference in revision. 6. In Appeal No.636 of 1986, this Court, by its judgment and decree, dated 05.12.1988, directed that the payment of additional amount, solatium and interest, as stipulated in Clauses 1 to 3 of the decree, shall be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court. 7. Sri T. Ramulu, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration brought to notice that a Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. RAGHUBIR SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS ETC.[1] held that the benefit of enhancement in solatium as per the amendment of Section 23(2) by Central Act 68 of 1984 is available only in those appeals decided by the High Court or the Supreme Court, which have arisen out of an award passed by the Collector or the Court between 30.04.1982 and 24.09.1984. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration also brought to notice that in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. FILIP TIAGO DE GAMA OF VEDEM VASCO DE GAMA[2], the Apex Court held that while the amended Section 23(2) applies to awards made by the Collector or the Court between 30.04.1982 and 24.09.1984 concerning higher solatium, the entitlement to additional amount provided under Section 23 (1-A) depends upon pendency of acquisition proceedings as on 30.04.1982 or commencement of acquisition proceedings after that date. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration further referred to MIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN AND OTHERS VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, HYDERABAD[3], wherein what was stated in RAGHUBIR SINGH’s case (supra 1), qua solatium was applied to interest also. 8. In view of the three decisions, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration rightly contends that the period of limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for filing the present execution petition could not have been computed from the date of the decision of the Apex Court in SUNDER VS. UNION OF INDIA [2001 (5) A.L.D. 136 S.C.], dated 19.09.2001, but should be computed with effect from the earlier three decisions of the Apex Court. Sri T. Ramulu, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration also brought to notice the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in MR. RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL) HYERABAD AND ANOTHER[4], wherein the Division Bench refused to reopen any decision which has become final by condoning any enormous and inordinate delay. If after the judgment in Appeal No.636 of 1986, dated 05.12.1988, the entitlement of the claimants to additional amount, solatium and interest was governed by the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, the execution petition ought to have been filed within 12 years therefrom, even if the judgment of this Court in Appeal No.636 of 1986 amounts to making the decree or order enforceable only from the dates of the respective judgments of the Apex Court. The present execution petition is clearly much beyond 12 years from the said dates of those decisions and cannot, by any means of liberal interpretation, be construed to be within limitation. 9. As the execution petition has to fail and the order of rejection has to be upheld on that ground alone, it is needless to answer the other two questions raised herein about the need for any succession certificate or the territorial jurisdiction of the executing Court. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.499 of 2011 Date: 10th October, 2011 KL [1] AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 1933 (1) [2] (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 277 [3] AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1424 [4] 2003 (2) L.S. 198 (D.B.)