IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1071 of 2011 Between: B. Narsimha Reddy .. Petitioner AND The Land Acquisition Officer .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1071 of 2011 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.211 of 2009 in O.P.No.14 of 2002, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayanpet, dated 02.02.2010, by which a request of the revision petitioner for issuance of a cheque for Rs.1,13,784/- towards compensation payable to him in O.P.No.14 of 2002, ordered on 31.03.2005 by the reference Court, was negatived and the petition was dismissed without costs. 2. The impugned order states that the cheque petition was originally returned by the office of the trial Court on 04.08.2009 requiring the revision petitioner to submit a certificate of non-satisfaction of decree from the transferee Court, as the decree in O.P.No.14 of 2002 was earlier transferred to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, as per the orders of the reference Court, dated 31.07.2006. The revision petitioner was stated to have resubmitted the petition stating that he never requested for the transfer of the decree and does not know why it was transferred though the amounts were deposited in the reference Court. The revision petitioner endorsed that as a full satisfaction memo was filed by him, no non-satisfaction certificate from any other Court need be filed. The impugned order shows that the reference Court addressed the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, in this regard, which responded by informing that on receipt of decree in O.P.No.14 of 2002 on transfer, E.P.No.258 of 2006 was filed before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, in which part satisfaction to a tune of Rs.75,588/- was recorded and the execution petition was closed on 07.06.2007. The impugned order further states that when explanation was called for from the concerned, Sri V. Manohar Reddy, Advocate, filed an explanation stating that originally, Sri G. Krishnaiah, Advocate represented the revision petitioner and he later entered appearance with due consent from the said counsel and he applied for transfer of the decree which was ordered on 31.07.2006. Sri G. Krishnaiah, Advocate, in his explanation, stated that he enquired the revision petitioner, who did not exactly know whether he filed any transfer petition, but who claimed to have filed no execution petition in the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal. The revision petitioner himself, in his explanation, stated that he forgot about filing the transfer petition through Sri V. Manohar Reddy, Advocate and did not inform the same to Sri G. Krishnaiah, Advocate. He further claimed that he never approached the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, for execution of the decree through any execution petition. Thereafter, in C.R.P.No.5582 of 2010, this Court, by an order, dated 15.12.2010, directed the reference Court to consider the cheque petition and pass appropriate orders. The reference Court noted the serious doubts canvassed by the learned Government Pleader about the identity of the persons involved before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, and the reference Court which requires a thorough investigation, as the whole episode smacks of a purported attempt to swindle away public money. The reference Court noted, in the impugned order, that two serious doubts arise as to who was the person who got the decree transferred to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, and got part satisfaction recorded on which, the execution petition in that Court was closed and who is the person before the reference Court purporting to be the claimant, which doubts require a thorough investigation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs. 3. The revision petitioner challenges the said order in this revision contending that when the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the amount due as balance as per the decree and did not dispute payment to the revision petitioner, the order of rejection of a request for issuance of cheque is illegal. Part payment of the decree debt before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal and deposit of the balance before the reference Court itself leading to full satisfaction, were not claimed to be in excess of the amounts due under the decree and on retransfer of the decree to the original Court, the original Court has jurisdiction to issue a cheque. 4. When the matter came up for hearing, Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader initially requested on 29.07.2011 for grant of time for verification about the matter being investigated into, as opined in the impugned order, and placing the result of such investigation, if done, before the Court. Later, Sri T. Ramulu, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration reported on 27.08.2011 that in the absence of clarity in the impugned order, no investigation had been taken up so far about the identity of the person involved. In view of the serious doubts entertained by the reference Court leading it to feel that a thorough investigation is necessary, this Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer/the respondent to conduct the necessary investigation or enquiry, as desired by the impugned order and submit the result of such investigation. 5. The Land Acquisition Officer/the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Priyadarshini Jurala Project, Gadwal, sent her report to the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration through letter No.B/196/2005, dated 07.11.2011 (?) stating that she enquired Sri B. Narsimha Reddy, son of Papi Reddy, who is the awardee in Award No.18/2001 on 26.09.2011 in which he stated that he signed the transfer petition filed by Sri V. Manohar Reddy, Advocate to transfer the decree to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, that he received Rs.75,588/- towards the decree in 2006 in E.P.No.258 of 2006 which was closed on part satisfaction by the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal and that after the same, he did not file any other execution petition in any Court. The awardee was also claimed to have stated that after the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the balance amount, he filed the cheque petition before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayanpet, on refusal by which Court, he approached the High Court. The Special Deputy Collector stated that her enquiry revealed that the person who got the decree transferred to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal and got part satisfaction and the person who claimed to be the claimant in the application under consideration are one and the same. 6. Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader have conceded that with the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, the serious doubts entertained by the reference Court in the impugned order are now clear. A reading together of all the material on record discloses that in the calculation memo filed on behalf of the revision petitioner before the reference Court on 02.09.2010, the amount due under the decree, the amount paid in E.P.No.258 of 2006 before Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, and the balance amount due were specified and the letter of the Deputy Collector, dated 29.01.2009 informing about the deposit of Rs.1,13,784/- tallies with the calculation made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. In the affidavit in support of the cheque petition, the revision petitioner, of course, did not refer to the execution before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal and part satisfaction recorded therein, but even the respondent did not claim to have paid or deposited any excess amount than due under the decree in this regard and in view of the explanation offered by both the Advocates for the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner himself, it is clear that the revision petitioner got the decree transferred to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal and received the amount in part satisfaction of the decree from the respondent, while it is the balance that has been deposited by the respondent before the reference Court, the payment of which to the revision petitioner alone will result in full satisfaction of the decree. The rustic innocence of the rural farmer obviously led to the confusion creating doubts in the mind of the leaned Government Pleader before the reference Court and the reference Court also. Now that the report of the Land Acquisition Officer makes things clear and as the amount in deposit appears to be due under the decree, the revision petitioner as the decree holder is entitled to receive the same through cheque. 7. However, in view of the sequence of events that led to this anomalous situation, it may be in the interests of justice to direct identification of the revision petitioner before the reference Court by either the Village Administrative Officer or the Secretary of the Village Panchayat of Mustipally Village, Makthal Mandal of Mahabubnagar District, the residential village of the revision petitioner, before delivering the cheque. Subject to the same, this civil revision petition has to be ordered. 8. In the result, I.A.No.211 of 2009 in O.P.No.14 of 2002, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayanpet, is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the petitioner in I.A.No.211 of 2009 in O.P.No.14 of 2002 shall be identified either by the Village Administrative Officer or the Village Panchayat Secretary of Mustipally Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District before delivery of the cheque for Rs.1,13,784/- to him in full satisfaction of the decree in O.P.No.14 of 2002, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayanpet. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, accordingly, without costs. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21st October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1071 of 2011 Date: 21st October, 2011 KL