( 1 ) THIS batch of revision is filed by the A. P. Industrial infrastructure Corporation Limited, aggrieved by the individual orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, rejecting the calculation memo filed by the Land acquisition Officer, (for short the LAO ).

( 2 ) THROUGH a notification dated 5-1-1985, issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act (for short the Act ), an extent of Ac. 100. 00, situated in Tirumalgiri village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District, was acquired for the benefit of the petitioner- corporation. Even before the award was passed, certain tentative amount of compensation was paid to the land-owners under Section 17 (3a) (b) of the Act. After completing the formalities, award was passed by the LAO on 25-9-1986, determining the market value, solatium and interest. He divided the lands into two categories and determined the compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-, per acre, respectively. He paid the compensation, duly taking into account, the amount paid earlier. The claimants demanded the compensation @ Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per acre.

( 3 ) THE LAO referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, in view of the request made by the claimants. The Trial Court, in turn, rendered its judgments on 22-2-1994, enhancing the compensation, uniformly, to Rs. 45,000/-, from Rs. 15,000/-, or Rs. 25,0007-, as the case may be, fixed by the LAO. Various benefits under the Act, as it stood amended by that time, were extended. The LAO filed appeals against the decrees of the Civil court. While granting stay of the execution of decree, this Court directed that half of the enhanced compensation be deposited. In the month of August, 1994, various amounts, said to be representing half of the enhanced compensation, were deposited. Appeals were ultimately dismissed on 11-2-1997, and thereby, the decree passed by the Trial Court, in the references made under Section 18 of the Act, became final.

( 4 ) AFTER the appeals were dismissed, the claimants filed execution petitions. The lao deposited certain amounts, which are far less than the amounts that were paid towards half of the decretal amount, deposited in August 1994, and pleaded that the decrees are satisfied. The claimants did not agree; and the Executing court rejected the calculation memo filed by the LAO. At one point of time, the matters were brought before this Court by way of revisions, and the Executing Court was directed to consider the matter afresh. After such remand, the LAO filed calculation sheets afresh, depicting that the claimants were, in fact, paid excess amounts. The executing Court rejected the same, through the order under revision.

( 5 ) THOUGH the petitioner is not a party to the OP, or the execution proceedings, it filed the present revisions, since the liability to pay the compensation rests upon it.

( 6 ) SRI R. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount paid so far by the petitioner, to each of the claimants, at various stages, has to be adjusted first, towards the market value, from the initial stage, upto the date of award; and interest is payable only on the amount of market value, which remains unpaid. In support of this contention he relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in V. Samrajya Laxmi v. LAO, Dy, director of Social Welfare, 1994 (1) APLJ 284 (HC) and the judgment of the Supreme court in Prem Nath Kapur v. National fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. , (1996) 2 SCC 71.

( 7 ) SRI S. R. Mahajir, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is no justification for the petitioner to adjust the amount of solatium and interest deposited at the time of passing of the award; towards the market value, that was enhanced many years later, by the civil Court. He submits that the judgment of this Court in V. Samrajya Laxmi s case (supra), does not apply to the facts of the case, and that the judgment of the Supreme court in Pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document