THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.1542 of 2007 Date: 10.06.2011 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its Depot Manager, Wanaparthy Depot. … Petitioner AND P. Bhadrappa (died) Per L.Rs. 3 to 7 and LAO/RDO, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.1542 of 2007 ORDER: When land was acquired for the construction of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) Complex at Wanaparthy, compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) to the owners of the property whose lands were acquired. Disputing that the quantum of compensation was inadequate, the respondents 1 to 7 herein requested for a reference of the acquisition to the civil Court for adjudication under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The dispute, consequently, was referred to the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy in O.P.No.116 of 1987. Through award dated 20.08.1991, the referral Court awarded compensation determining the value of the acquired property at Rs.40/- per square yard. Interest at 9% per annum for the first year and at 15% per annum thereafter on the amount due to the owners of the property was also awarded with effect from 10.03.1976, which was the date of dispossession. Aggrieved by the value of the acquired property as determined by the referral Court, Government preferred A.S.No.509 of 1992 before this Court. Through judgment dated 25.07.2000, A.S.No.509 of 1992 was allowed in part. Compensation was reduced to Rs.30/- per square yard (from Rs.40/- per square yard, as determined by the referral Court). Interest indeed as awarded by the referral Court was confirmed by this Court. 2. APSRTC, which is the revision petitioner herein, was not a party in O.P.No.116 of 1987. However, as APSRTC was the direct beneficiary, the amount of compensation would become payable by APSRTC to the Government which in turn makes it over to the decree holders. As the person effected by the award in O.P.No.116 of 1987, APSRTC came on record in A.S.No.509 of 1992 as respondent No.3. APSRTC filed review petition before this Court assailing the orders in A.S.No.509 of 1992. The review petition, however, was dismissed. 3. Thereafter, the owners of the property, who became the decree holders (and shall be referred to as decree holders, hereinafter), filed E.P.No.11 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. A calculation memo was filed in E.P.No.11 of 2001 showing the decretal amount as Rs.7,89,274/-. The LAO deposited Rs.5,61,266/- to the credit of E.P.No.11 of 2001. The LAO and APSRTC filed joint calculation memo showing that a balance of Rs.3,23,881/- was still payable by 01.11.2003. E.P.No.11 of 2001 was closed recording the deposit of Rs.5,61,266/-, which was deposited on 21.01.2004. The LAO himself filed memo showing that an amount of Rs.1,96,022.45 paise was due to the decree holders as on 21.01.2004. 4. Consequently, E.P.No.57 of 2005 was laid by the decree holders for a sum of Rs.2,30,326.30 constituting Rs.1,96,022.45 as the principal amount and Rs.34,303.85 as interest. Notice in E.P.No.57 of 2005 was served upon the LAO as well as the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Wanaparthy (who shall be referred as the judgment debtors, hereinafter). Despite notice, APSRTC did not enter appearance. 5. The decree holders filed a calculation memo showing that the amount of Rs.2,61,807/- was due from the judgment debtors as on 18.04.2006. The LAO filed his objections to the calculation memo of the decree holders. The execution Court accepted the calculation memo of the decree holders as on 18.04.2006. It is pertinent to point out that the order of the execution Court accepting the calculation memo of the decree holders regarding the amounts due as on 18.04.2006 was not questioned either by the LAO or by APSRTC. As APSRTC did not enter appearance in E.P.No.57 of 2005 despite notice, APSRTC was set ex parte by the execution Court. APSRTC, thereafter, laid the petition under Order 21 Rule 106 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte order. The execution Court dismissed the application of APSRTC on 30.03.2006. 6. The amount claimed to be due thus is Rs.2,61,807/-. Interest was calculated at 9% per annum for one year from 10.03.1976 and at 15% thereafter. APSRTC which laid the present revision contends that the decree holders are entitled to interest at 4% per annum only and not at 9% per annum for one year and at 15% thereafter, that the entire calculation as submitted by the decree holders is incorrect and that the judgment debtors including APSRTC need not pay any monies to the decree holders. 7. Sri D. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the decree holders contended that APSRTC was not the original judgment debtor and that APSRTC, therefore, is not entitled to take any defence regarding the calculation that the decree holders have propounded. Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for APSRTC, on the other hand, pointed out that APSRTC is the direct beneficiary of the acquisition and that the whole burden of payment of money rests upon APSRTC. There is no dispute that the property was acquired by the Government for the construction of a bus stand for APSRTC at Wanaparthy. Admittedly, APSRTC is the real beneficiary. Government admits that whatever amount becomes payable as compensation for the acquisition of the property becomes payable ultimately by APSRTC. Consequently, APSRTC does not simply hold a stake in the dispute. The whole liability is upon APSRTC. In such a situation, I agree with the contention of the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC that APSRTC is entitled to intervene in the execution proceedings and is entitled to question the orders of the execution Court regarding the amounts payable by the judgment debtor to the decree holders. 8. Admittedly, APSRTC has filed a calculation memo. The execution Court rejected the same. It is contended by the learned standing counsel for APSRTC that the execution Court rejected the calculation memo of APSRTC in limini on the ground that APSRTC was not originally the judgement debtor, that it was merely a beneficiary of the acquisition and that APSRTC, therefore, was not entitled to submit calculation as to the amounts due to the decree holders. 9. I do not agree with the contention of the learned standing counsel for APSRTC that the execution Court rejected the calculation of APSRTC. The execution Court passed orders in E.P.No.57 of 2005 taking the stand of APSRTC into consideration. More over, the calculation memo filed in E.P.No.11 of 2001 was a joint calculation memo by APSRTC and the LAO. However, I agree with the legal aspect of the claim of the learned standing counsel for APSRTC that as APSRTC is the real beneficiary of the acquisition, it is entitled to come on record and indeed is entitled to file objections to the calculation memo of the decree holders. 10. The dispute, however, would in fact appear to be with reference to the decision in APSRTC, Hyderabad v. RDO-cum-LAO, Adilabad[1]. In a revision laid by APSRTC, Hyderabad in a land acquisition dispute, the Court held first, that interest on interest could not be claimed and that interest on total compensation payable was at 4% per annum for a period of one year from the date of compensation and at 15% thereafter. The basis of the judgment was the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Andhra Pradesh in 1953 and by the Central Government in 1984. The amendment to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act came into force in 1984. The possession in the present case was taken on 10.03.1976. It, therefore, is the case of the learned standing counsel for APSRTC that interest is payable at 4% per annum only and not at 9% per annum from 10.03.1976 for a period of one year and at 15% per annum indeed thereafter. 11. The learned counsel for the decree holders has attempted to distinguish this decision from the facts of the present case. The decision in the cited case was delivered on 05.07.2005. The decree in O.P.No.116 of 1987 was in 1991 and the decree in A.S.No.509 of 1992 was in 2000. The award of the referral Court and the order of the appellate Court were prior to the judgment in the cited case. The learned counsel for the decree holders contended that as the decisions of the award and the appeal were prior to the cited case, the cited case has no application. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the decree holders that the decree as passed in A.S.No.509 of 1992 on 25.07.2000 by this Court became final and cannot be reopened and that the interest as awarded in A.S.No.509 of 1992 at 9% per annum for one year from 10.03.1976 cannot now be questioned. He drew the analogy that had the decree been satisfied prior to the reported decision, the beneficiary could not have sought for the refund of the amounts received by the decree holders, so much so, the beneficiary cannot now turn the clock backwards seeking for calculation of interest at 4% per annum from 10.03.1976 for a period of one year. 13. It is settled law that the execution Court cannot go behind the decree. This Court passed orders in A.S.No.509 of 1992 determining the rate of interest at 9% for one year from 10.03.1976 and at 15% thereafter. Perhaps award of interest at 9% per annum for one year is incorrect as explained by the High Court in APSRTC, Hyderabad v. RDO-cum-LAO, Adilabad[2] (supra). But, where the decree in A.S.No.509 of 1992 became final, I am afraid that the decree cannot be reopened on the strength of a subsequent decision. I, therefore, hold that once a decree was passed by this Court, the decree is liable to be executed as it is, unless the same is set aside by a superior Court. Where the decree in A.S.No.509 of 1992 awarded interest at 9% per annum for one year, the decree holders are entitled to interest at 9% per annum for one year. The contention of the learned counsel for the APSRTC on the strength of the cited decision, therefore is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected. I, therefore, have no hesitation to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the decree holders that the judgment debtors including the beneficiary are liable to pay interest at 9% per annum from 10.03.1976 for one year and at 15% thereafter. The view of the execution Court is perfectly justified. There is no error apparent calling for the interference of the revisional Court. 14. However, there is one clarification, which is needed. There would appear to be a mathematical error in the calculation. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to request the execution Court to permit both sides to file calculation memos once again, determine the amount due and execute the same accordingly. 15. Consequently, this revision is found to be devoid of merits and it is accordingly liable to be dismissed. However, this revision is ordered permitting the beneficiary and the LAO as well as the decree holders to file fresh calculation memos calculating interest at 9% per annum for one year from 10.03.1976 and at 15% thereafter and arrive at the amount due after deducting the amounts which were already paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 10.06.2011 Isn [1] 2005 (4) ALD 772 [2] 2005 (4) ALD 772