S. ANANDA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 1st February 2001 of the principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in E. P. No. 62 of 2000 in O. P. No. 2397 of 1980.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the decreeholder in whose favour an award was passed by the civil Court in O. P. No. 2397 of 1980 on 14th december 1988. The Execution Petition is filed by the petitioner/claimant under order XXI Rules 22,43 and 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure to attach and sell the schedule properties for the realization of the e. P. amount. According to the petitioner/ claimant he was paid the entire amount of compensation except the additional amount of 12% awarded under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the land Acquisition Act. That was resisted by the Respondent/special Deputy Collector, who contested the claim of the petitioner/ claimant on the ground that the petitioner/ claimant is not entitled for the additional market value provided under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the Act as the acquisition as well as the passing of the Award was prior to 30-4-1982. Thereafter the Executing Court went into the merits of the claim of the petitioner/claimant and after referring to various judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court decided that the petitioner is not entitled to the additional market value as provided under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the Act and accordingly dismissed the e. P. Questioning the said order, the claimant/petitioner is before this Court.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the executing Court has no power to go behind the decree passed by the reference Court. The lands of the petitioner were acquired and an Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter on a reference the Civil Court passed its Award in the year 1988. As per the award passed by the Civil Court the petitioner is entitled for the additional market value as provided under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the Act and the said Award passed by the Civil Court has become final as there was no appeal or other proceedings. It is stated that when the petitioner/claimant sought to execute the award, the executing court went into the merits of the claim and dismissed the E. P. The said action of the executing Court is illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel the executing Court has no power to go behind the award/decree passed by the reference Court. Therefore, the impugned order of the executing Court is liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme court in Bhawarlal Bhandari vs. Universal heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises1 in support of his contention that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The learned Counsel also contended that as on the date when the Award was passed by the Civil Court the position as declared by the Apex Court was in terms of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of union of India and others vs. Zora Singh etc. etc. 2. The learned Counsel also contended that even if there is subsequent change in view of the latter judgment of the Supreme court, unless the Award passed by the Civil court is modified, the Executing Court has no power to go into the merits of the said award.

( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, supported the order of the executing Court. The learned Counsel contended that on merits as the acquisition as well as passing of the award by the collector was before 30-4-1982, the petitioner is not entitled to claim additional market value under Sec. 23 (l-A) of the Act. Therefore, the executing Court is well within its jurisdiction to deny the claim. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Maharau Srawan hatkar and also the decision of the supreme Court in the case of K. S. Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that payment of additional amounts under sub- section (1-A) of Sec. 23 of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document