The executing court cannot go beyond the decree and must respect prior adjudications regarding entitlement to compensation, as established by the doctrine of merger.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner – claimant No.29 aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2020 passed in E.P No.115 of 2008 in O.P No.267 of 1979 by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The revision petitioner along with claimant Nos.28, 31, 32 and legal representative of D.Hr No.1, filed E.P No.115 of 2008 for realization of E.P amount of Rs.1,05,24,515.59/- basing on the orders of this Court in CCCA No.21 of 1995 and Cross objection No.23057 of 1998 dated 27.03.2006.

3. The contention of the petitioner - claimant in the E.P was that the land to an extent of Acs.50.28 guntas and 46 Sq.yards i.e., 245434 Sq.yards at Baghlingampally was acquired by A.P. Housing Board through award, dated 31.12.1975 and possession of the land was taken on 18.01.1976. The market value of the land was fixed @ Rs.30/- per Sq.yard. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed O.P. No.267 of 1979 for enhancement and the same was decreed on 14.07.1994 by fixing the market value of the land @ Rs.37.50 Ps. per Sq.yard. Aggrieved by the said order, the Judgment Debtor (J.Dr.) had filed CCCA No.21 of 1995 before the High Court and the Decree Holders (D.Hrs.) filed Cross Objection No.23057 of 1998 and the said appeal and Cross Objections were disposed of on 27.03.2006 by fixing the market value @ Rs.50.00 per Sq.yard. As per the judgment and decree in CCCA No.21 of 1995, the claimant was entitled for the E.P. amount. While stating so, the claimants also stated that the claim of each claimant was decided by the Court in O.P No.336 of 1979.

4. The J.Dr/LAO filed counter in the said E.P. admitting acquisition of land and passing the award dated 31.12.1975, but contended that since there were rival claims, the LAO referred the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for adjudication of title and apportionment along with compensation amount and the said O.P. was numbered as O.P No.336 of 1979. O.P No.336 of 1979 was disposed of on 30.04.1994. The present claimants were arrayed as claimant Nos.62 to 65, who were the defendant Nos.107 to 111 in C.S No.14 of 1958. While adjudicating the dispute under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in O.P No.336 of 1979, the Court held that the claimant Nos.62 to 65 and some others had not placed any evidence, as such, their claim was closed. The above claimants were set ex-parte. No apportionment of compensation was made to the said claimants. As such, the present claimants were not entitled to claim any compensation. The Court awarded amounts to claimant Nos.2 and 3, 50 to 55, 61, 101, 102, 103, 124, 151 to 155 only but not to the above claimants. The claimants wrongly filed the E.P. showing the judgment in O.P No.267 of 1979 by suppressing the judgment in O.P No.336 of 1979 and prayed to dismiss the E.P.

5. On considering the rival contentions, the learned I-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, observed that O.P No.336 of 1979, dated 30.04.1994 was a reference under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of title in respect of the same subject matter of property as in O.P No.267 of 1979. O.P No.267 of 1979 was referred for determination of market value and OP No.336 of 1979 was referred for adjudication of title. The High Court enhanced the market value in the Cross Objections filed by the claimants, but the title of the claimants was not decided by the High Court. As the claimants had filed Cross Objections only for enhancement, the High Court entertained their petition to that extent only. Mere enhancement of the market value would not confer any title to receive compensation, which was subject matter of O.P No.336 of 1979. The amount was deposited with regard to the rights of the claimants whose entitlement was declared in O.P No.336 of 1979. Since both the references were made with regard to the same subject matter of property, both the orders have to be read together. In view of the order of the Court in O.P No.336 of 1979,