JUDGMENT :

M. GANGA RAO, J.

1. The petitioner is the Special Deputy Collector-Land Acquisition Officer, Srisailam Project, Kurnool, filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 23-04-2013 passed in E.P. No. 253 of 2009 in LAOP No. 4394 of 1986 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, wherein and whereby the Executing Court allowed the petition filed by the Decree holder under Order XXI Rules 22, 54 and 66 CPC seeking the court for attachment and sale of schedule property for realization of decreetal amount. Further, the Executing Court directed the petitioner herein to deposit Rs. 34,04,990/- on or before 07-06-2013 without fail.

2. The petitioner-judgment debtor acquired the lands of the respondents-decree holders in an extent of Ac. 50.31 cents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and passed Award No. 38/75, on 04-11-1975 and took possession of the land on 12.02.1976. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation @ Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Ac.50.31 cents. The reference Court enhanced the compensation by order dated 04-04-1990. The petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 993 of 1993 against the decree passed in O.P. No. 4394 of 1986 by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The Appellate Court in A.S. No. 993 of 1996 disallowed 15% additional market value and confirmed the market value, solatium and interest, against which the petitioner carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition in Civil Appeal No. 5844 of 1999 and the same was dismissed on 17.11.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner had not taken any steps to pay decreetal amount to the petitioners. The respondents-decree holders filed E.P. No. 253 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No. 4394 of 1986 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool for realization of the decreetal amount by way of attachment of the petitioner's property.

3. The Executing Court, after consideration of rival pleadings, and contentions, and calculation memos filed by the petitioner and the respondents, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 34,04,990/- on or before 07.06.2013 by the impugned order dated 23.04.2013, against which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the Executing Court failed to consider the aspect of limitation in filing the Execution Petition even after lapse of 12 years of the prescribed period. The E.P. schedule properties are not belonged to the petitioner-judgment debtor and they are already attached by several decree holders. The revision petitioner-judgment debtor had deposited an amount of Rs. 12,65,513/- through cheque dated 27-10-1997 after deducting income tax of Rs. 2,74,441/- on the requisition made by the Decree holders on 05-02-2002. The judgment debtor issued Form-16-A of Income Tax on 20.02.2002, but the respondents filed calculation memo by including an amount of Rs. 2,74,441/- deducted towards TDS and paid to the Income Tax Department. But the original claimant already taken Form-16-A for realizing the income tax from the Income Tax Department, Kurnool was not brought to the notice of this Court. The Executing Court went wrong in directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 34,04,990/-.

5. Sri. P. Ganga Ramireddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-decree holders would contend that the trial Court passed judgment and decree on 04-06-1990 in O.P. No. 4394 of 1986 and this court allowed the appeal on 09.09.1996 in A.S. No. 993 of 1993. He further contends that E.P. No. 253 of 2009 was filed on 03.09.2008 within 12 years. Hence, the Execution Petition is not barred by limitation. The reference Court granted Rs. 20,000/- per acre and the total amount comes to Rs. 10,06,200/- (Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Ac. 50.31 cents) after deducting the amount awarded by the trial Court and the balance compensation of Rs. 90,932/- has to be paid by the petit