The Executing Court must strictly follow the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and scrutinize the calculation memos in the light of the relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: CRP(MD).No.415 of 2013 : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and final order dated 05.10.2012 made in E.P.No. 40 of 2008 in LAOP.No.23 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam.

CRP(MD).No.416 of 2013 : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and final order dated 05.10.2012 made in E.P.No. 41 of 2008 in LAOP.No.22 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam.

CRP(MD).No.417 of 2013 : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and final order dated 05.10.2012 made in E.P.No.42 of 2008 in LAOP.No.23 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam.

CRP(MD).No.418 of 2013 : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and final order dated 05.10.2012 made in E.P.No.7 of 2009 in LAOP.No.22 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam.)

1. The respondents 2 and 3 in the execution petition who are the beneficiaries in the acquisition proceedings arising out of land acquisition proceedings are the revision petitioners.

Factual Background:

2. The lands belonging to the respondents in the revision petitions were acquired for the purpose of expansion of Government Horticulture Research Station by way of 4(1) Notification dated 30.07.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer had fixed certain amount as compensation. Challenging the same, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in LAOP.Nos.22 and 23 of 1992 before the Sub Court, Periyakulam. The learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation. Challenging the same, the Acquisition Officer had filed A.S.Nos.130 to 133 of 1995 before the High Court. The Division Bench of High Court was pleased to dispose of the appeal fixing compensation at Rs.300/- per cent and Rs.500/- for each coconut tree by way of an order dated 03.12.2003.

3. In order to execute the said award, the claimants had filed E.P.Nos.40, 41 and 42 of 2008 and 7 of 2009 before the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam for attachment of movable and immovable properties. After considering the calculation memo filed on either side, the learned Subordinate Judge had passed an order on 19.12.2011 allowing the execution petitions. The said orders were challenged in CRP(MD).No.793 to 796 of 2012 by the beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings. This Court by an order dated 26.06.2012 arrived at a finding that the amount deposited by the beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings has not been deducted by the Executing Court at each stage which has led to the confusion. This Court has also referred to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 8 SCC 457 ( Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India) with regard to the calculation of interest. This Court in Paragraph No.8 of the order, had further found that the execution petitions had been allowed simply based upon the calculation memo without giving credit to the amount deposited by the petitioner at each stage.

4. Based on the above said findings, the revision petitions were allowed and the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam was directed to work out the calculation afresh in the light of the guidelines given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Both the parties were directed to file their respective calculation memo before the Court within a period of two weeks.

5. In view of the order of this Court dated 26.06.2012, the beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings have filed a calculation sheet on 31.08.2012. The Executing Court found that the respondents in the execution proceedings were not able to establish that the calculation sheet furnished by the claimants is erroneous. The Executing Court further found that the claimants have deducted the amount withdrawn by them from the total amount. The beneficiaries have deposited part