Koka Suryanarayana Rao & Ors vs Land Acquisition ...

3. Lands belonging to the appellants were acquired for the purpose of construction of bus station complex at Pithapuram. This was done on the basis of a requisition made by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called `APSRTC' for short). Possession was already taken of the land with building and trees on 29.1.1978 itself and award came to be passed on 1.6.1981 awarding compensation @ Rs.10 per square yard (48,400/- per acre) for the land, and Rs.97,930/- for permanent structures and Rs.740/- towards tress. A reference was made under Section 18 of the Act by the appellants herein and the reference Court by its order and decree dated 25.4.1984 enhanced the compensation @ Rs.40/- per square yard from Rs.10/- per square yard. It also increased the compensation for buildings as well as the trees. It also ordered the solatium @ 15% and interest @ 4 % per annum from the date of taking possession of the acquired land. Appeals came to be filed against this judgment. The High Court, however, confirmed the said judgment by its judgment dated 5.2.1992 in appeal No.1970 of 1985.

judgment debtor. By that it wanted an opportunity to contest the execution petitions stating that they had deposited the amount under the threat of attachment. This execution petition was dismissed, and, therefore, the APSRTC filed a civil revision petition. This civil revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 10.8.2001. Therefore, APSRTC filed a writ petition being WP No.18813 of 2003 before the High Court. However, that Writ Petition No.18813 of 2003 also came to be dismissed by the High Court. The said judgment by the Single Judge was confirmed in writ appeal No.1190 of 2004. The APSRTC, not content with the judgment, approached this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.

7. After this, however, the APSRTC filed three civil revisions being CRP Nos. 601, 603 and 604 of 2006 with leave to file revisions against the order of the Executing Court dated 11.8.2005 passed in EP No.237 of 1992, 44 of 1993, 279 of 1992 and 83 of 1996. These revision petitions were also dismissed by the High Court by separate orders. Again, a Special Leave Petition was filed against the orders passed in the civil revision petitions. However, this Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by this Court on 20.8.2007.

Similar orders were passed in other execution petitions also. Against this order, the APSRTC again filed four civil revision petitions, they being CRP Nos.601-604 of 2006 which were dismissed by the Learned Single Judge.

(emphasis supplied)

appellants herein. All through, the respondent herein was a party to all the proceedings including the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the APSRTC, firstly, for its impleadment and, secondly, against the order passed by the Executing Court accepting the calculation memos. Unfortunately, it is only when all the controversies were closed that the Land Acquisition Officer has chosen to file these four Civil Revision Petitions in 2008. We do not approve of this course as the Land Acquisition Officer could not have, at this juncture, filed the Civil Revision Petitions and even if those Civil Revisions were filed and could be entertained, in our opinion, all the questions regarding the correctness of the calculation memos had also been finally closed, firstly, by the judgment in CRP Nos.601 to 604 of 2006 and lastly by the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed challenging the calculation memos.

16. We have carefully seen the pleadings of the parties at various stages where the APSRTC had clearly challenged the calculation memos.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the question of correctness of the calculation memos was not considered by the High Court or this Court. In our opinion, therefore, the contention raised by Shri R. Venkataramani regarding the calculation memos not being correct cannot be entertained now.

17. The appeals, therefore, deserve to be allowed and are allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Executing Court is restored. However, under the circumstances, there will be no orders as to costs.