IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
A consent judgment is binding, preventing parties from challenging execution orders if they previously agreed to the terms, even if property boundaries are unclear.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2009 passed in E.P.No.36 of 1993 in O.S.No.852 of 1978 on the file of X Additional Senior Civil Judge( FTC), City Civil Court, Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and also perused the written arguments filed by both.

3. The suit was initially filed by Mr.Harbanslal Bhanote as plaintiff. After his death, his wife Smt.Mathura Devi was impleaded as plaintiff. Thereafter, Smt.Kanta Rani was impleaded as plaintiff since Smt.Mathura Devi also died. The name of The Telangana State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited was impleaded in the place of A.P.Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited vide orders in I.A.No.1 of 2021 dated 16.09.2021. The said Telangana State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited is third defendant in the suit and also the Execution Petition.

4. The back ground of the case leading to filing of the present petition by petitioner herein, who is respondent No.3 in the suit is that in the year 1961, the Government (R5 herein and defendant in the suit) acquired the land of Mr.Harbhanslal Bhanote up to 4.27 gts in Sy.No.136 of Lalapet Village. In the year 1968, O.P.No.126 of 1968 was referred by the Land Acquisition Officer (R4 herein) to decide issues regarding the compensation and extent of the acquired property. The learned Judge in O.P.No.126 of 1968 held that the Government took possession of excess land to the extent of 1609 sq.yds i.e., 5.30 gts instead of permitted 4.27 gts. Thereafter, Harbhanslal Bhanote filed O.S.No.852 of 1978 against the respondents 4 and 5 herein for recovery of possession of excess property of 1609 sq.yds in Sy.No.136, Lalapet, Hyderabad (disputed property) from the Government. Petitioner/Telangana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited (presently TDDCF) came on record in O.S.No.852 of 1978 as the concerned land was vested in it. The learned Judge passed decree in O.S.NO.852 of 1978 on 12.10.1981 directing the petitioner to deliver possession of the disputed property. Aggrieved by the same, CCCA No.33 of 1982 was filed by the petitioner and CCCA No.58 of 1982 by the respondents 4 and 5 (plaintiff). Both appeals were dismissed by the Court on 17.02.1992.

5. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.36 of 1993 for execution of decree passed in O.S.No.852 of 1978 on 26.04.1993. Along with petition, E.A.No.88 of 2009 was filed for conducting survey on the property. The Court passed order on 28.08.2009 dismissing the E.A giving the following options for obliging with the decree; i) demolish the structures over 1609 sq.yds and deliver vacant site with road on one side; ii) Deliver the site with structures, without receiving the cost of the structures; iii) to pay market value of the disputed property.

6. On 13.11.2009, order was passed in E.P.No.36 of 1993 directing the petitioner to pay the decree-holder/R1 amount of Rs.2,89,62,000/- for value of the disputed property without three months with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of default. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition is filed. On 13.03.2010, this Court granted interim stay in CRPMP No.1369 of 2010 in favour of the petitioner. This Court passed order on 03.03.2011 directing the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements, Andhra Pradesh to depute an officer to survey the property and demarcate 1609 sq.yds to be delivered to the respondents. On 16.07.2021, the survey report along with location sketch was brought on record by the petitioner. In the said survey report, it was concluded that the Dy.Inspector of Survey could not identify the area of the disputed property and his efforts to survey the same have gone in vain.

7. The petitioner filed the present revision petition mainly on the following grounds:

i) The trial court directing three various modes of execution is beyond its jurisdiction.

ii) The court below ought to have seen