The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired an extent of Acs.18.26 cents of land in Sy.No.1462 of Poli Grama Polam, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District, and an award was passed therein. At the instance of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), and it was taken up as L.A.O.P.No.40 of 1997. After the decree passed therein became final, the petitioner filed E.P.No.36 of 2006, for recovery of the balance of compensation.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed E.A.No.192 of 2007, under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., stating that they are entitled to be paid the amount of compensation. The petitioner opposed that application. Through its order, dated 04.04.2008, the Executing Court allowed the E.A. Hence, this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very filing of E.A., under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., was untenable, inasmuch as there did not exist any attachment. He contends that the execution proceedings, in an O.P., under Section 18 or 13 of the Act, substantially differ, from those in the ordinary suits, and there was absolutely no basis for the respondents to file the application. Learned counsel submits that the land stood vested in the Government, on being acquired under the Act, and that the respondents did not participate at any stage of the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, on the other hand, submits that the entire proceedings, in relation to the land, took place without the knowledge of, and notice to, his clients. He contends that the acquired land was owned by the respondents, and the executing Court was justified in determining the claim, as provided for under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C.

5. It has already been mentioned that the Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired an extent of Acs.18.26 cents of land, by invoking the provisions of the Act. The petitioner herein participated at various stages of the proceedings, be it, while submitting claim statements under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, or in the award enquiry. After examining his claim, and obviously because there did not exist any rival claims, the Land Acquisition Officer, the 1st respondent herein, passed an award, in favour of the petitioner. Not being satisfied with the compensation, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act, and the same was taken up by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, as L.A.O.P.No.40 of 1997. The compensation was enhanced and the decree passed by the trial Court became final.

6. The petitioner filed E.P.No.36 of 2006 and certain amount was deposited by the 1st respondent to the credit of the E.P. At that stage, respondents 2 and 3 submitted their claim under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C. It is relevant to extract the prayer of the respondents 2 and 3, in their claim petition. It reads as under:

“Therefore, the Claim Petitioners humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the petitioners are the original owners of the land acquired by the 1st respondent and direct the 1st respondent to pay the E.P. Schedule amount to the Claim Petitioners with costs and future interest and grant such other relief’s as deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the Claim Petitioners to meet the ends of justice.”

7. The application was opposed by the petitioner and the trial Court allowed the same.

8. The claim submitted under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., by a third party to a decree, is similar to a suit. It needs to be examined, in detail, duly recording the evidence, that may be adduced by the parties. The reason is that, the adjudication, leading to the decree under execution, takes place without the participation of a claimant, and law provides a full opportunity to him to substantiate his claim. However, all that would be possible, only when an item of property is attached, in the course of execution of t