( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 26-11 -2003, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at kurnool, dismissing the application in E. A. No. 260 of 2003; in E. P. No. 57 of 1996 in o. P. No. 2349 of 1980, filed under Sections 151 and 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the E. P. No. 57 of 1996 in O. P. No. 2349 of 1980 as not maintainable under section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as inserted by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (for short "the Act") since the Award was passed prior to 30-4-1982.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the respondent is the decree-holder.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as "the judgment-debtor and decree-holder" respectively.

( 5 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the Land acquisition Officer has passed an Award on 3-11-1978 fixing certain amount as compensation for the lands acquired. At the instance of the decree-holder, the matter was referred to the Additional Senior Civil judge at Kurnool, which was numbered as o. P. No. 2349 of 1980 and eventually judgment and decree, dated 18-7-1988, were passed in the said O. P. , enhancing the compensation, additional market value and solatium and also interest on additional market value and solatium against which an appeal had been preferred by the judgment- debtor in A. S. (SR) No. 15845 of 1992 along with an application in C. M. P. No. 9430 of 1992 on 20-11 -1992 to condone the delay in preferring the said appeal and the said application was dismissed. After a considerable time, the decree-holder has filed E. P. No. 57 of 1996 for realisation of the amount though an amount of Rs. 2,59,608. 00 had already been paid by the judgmentdebtor on 28-9-1986.

( 6 ) THE judgment-debtor filed an application in E. A. No. 260 of 2003 under sections 151 and 47 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking dismissal of the said e. P. , inter alia contending that an Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 3-11-1978 i. e. , prior to 30-4-1982 and further contending that in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in paripoornan v. State of Kerala the land owners would not be entitled to additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land acquisition Act where an Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer prior to 30-4-1982 and that the benefits under section 23 (1-A) of the Act cannot be accorded to the claimants if the acquisition is prior to 30-4-1982.

( 7 ) THE Court below having considered the said aspects, basing on the judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court in urban Improvement Trust v. Gokul Narain, s. Rangareddy v. Land Acquisition Officer and State of Gujarath v. Rama Rana and others, dismissed the said E. A. , filed by the judgment-debtor, as not maintainable. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

( 8 ) THE points to be considered in this revision are two fold; firstly whether the benefits under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act can be awarded to the claimants whose cases were pending as on the date on which the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 came into force i. e. , from 30-4-1982 and secondly whether such an objection can be raised under Section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure in an execution proceeding.

( 9 ) POINT NO. 1: For better appreciation of the case on hand, it is necessary to extract the relevant observations of the supreme Court in Paripoornan s case, which are as under:"the provisions contained in subsection (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act have to be treated as categorical parts of the amending provision in the Principal Act to which they relate. Section 23 (1-A) and Section 30 (1) are so interconnected with for considering sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the act, which is not possible to ignore the provisions of Section 30 (1) of the amending Act. "

( 10 ) IT was further held by the Supreme court that Section 23 (1-A) read with sub- se