IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5501 of 2007 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal (Land Acquisition Officer) ... PETITIONER AND Maniyar Abdul Basheer (died) by his L.Rs. and others ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This revision is at the instance of the State which is judgment debtor in E.P.No.76 of 2001 arising out O.P.No.200 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. 2. The respondent/decree holder’s land was acquired by the petitioner/State under Land Acquisition Act and under Award No.23/86, dated 23-09-1986 Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre apart from solatium and additional market value. The said award was subjected to a reference under O.P.No.200 of 1987 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal and on decree dated 09-10-1998 the said reference was allowed by enhancing the compensation for Rs.40,000/- per acre to Rs.70,000/- per acre apart from the grant of solatium and interest from the date of notification as per the decree aforesaid. 3. On further appeal to this Court in A.S.No.1851 of 1999 judgment and decree dated 13-03-2000 the compensation was further enhanced from 70,000/- per acre to Rs.75,000/- per acre and rest of the decree of the Court below was confirmed in all other aspects. 4. It is stated that the SLP was filed at the instance of the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The SLP stood dismissed on 14-09-2001, as the delay was not condoned. Thereafter respondents-decree holders filed the present E.P. seeking recovery of Rs.10,12,901/- on the basis of calculation memo produced by the decree holders along with the E.P. 5. The petitioner herein also filed the calculation memo which was prepared by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal showing net amount payable at Rs.10,14,983/-. The Executing Court considered the calculation memos of decree holders and judgment debtor and found that the calculations of the decree holders is less than that of the judgment debtor and as such, by adopting the decree holder’s calculation memo E.P. was allowed directing the judgment debtor/ petitioner herein on deposit an amount of Rs.10,12,901/- within two weeks. 6. Aggrieved thereby the present revision is filed and by an order of this Court dated 07-12-2007 interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P. was granted which is continuing. 7. In this revision I have directed the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents to file calculation memos to appreciate the controversy involved. Learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders have filed a calculation memo confirming to the calculation memo, which was filed before the Executing Court. Whereas the calculation memo filed by the petitioner through the learned Government Pleader under which the net amount payable is now worked out to Rs.45,798/-. Since there is a wide difference in the calculation memos filed by either side, it is obvious that the calculation memo filed by the Government before the Executing Court by the same Revenue Divisional Officer is now sough to be revised. The petitioner-State had accepted the liability to pay Rs.10,14,983/- when they filed the calculation memo before the Executing Court, but, now the said amount is drastically reduced and according to the learned Government Pleader the earlier calculation memos were not in conformity with that of the present one and in any event contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India[1] as well as other decision of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India[2]. 8. The learned Government Pleader appearing for State contended that irrespective of higher amount payable in the earlier calculation memo the petitioner – State ought not to be fastened with the liability, which is not in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court and an amount which is legally not due and payable cannot be recovered by the respondents-decree holders. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner-State had accepted the liability long back and based on the acceptance of liability, the Executing Court has passed the impugned order. Therefore, the amount payable was correctly shown in the calculation memo and the same was, in fact, less than the calculation memos filed by the petitioner-State. Several contentions are raised on either side on the aspect as to the liability of the Government with regard to the additional market value and interest. The calculation memo now filed by the State under item No.17 shows amount deposited at Rs.24,558/- on 04- 04-2008 which is disputed by the decree holder. 10. Keeping in view all these aspects and the contentions of either side with regard to the quantification of the liability and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, I deem it appropriate to remit the E.P.No.76 of 2001 to the Executing Court for fresh consideration in the light of the revised calculation memo filed by either side before the Court. 11. Both the parties are at liberty to agitate the questions with respect to the liability of the State in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, including the contentions of the respondents-decree holders that the State had already accepted the liability and hence cannot now refuse their liability. Since the calculation memos are already on record before this Court, both sides shall file copies thereof before the Executing Court and the Execution Court shall hear both sides and re- consider the matter afresh in the light of the contentions of either side, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that on such determination by the Executing Court the petitioner-State shall deposit the amounts as per the orders of the Executing Court within four (4) weeks to enable the respondents-decree holders to withdraw the said amount. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and E.P.No.76 of 2001 is remitted for fresh consideration to the Executing Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 09, 2010. Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5501 of 2007 June 09, 2010 Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/o.PN [1] AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3516 [2] (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 457