IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA DATE: 12.12.2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1356 OF 2019 Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer …Petitioner And P.Venkat Reddy and another …Respondents

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C’) aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 19.11.2018 in E.P.No.80 of 2005 in O.P.No.198 of 1996 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District (now transferred learned Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajendranagar), whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order XXI Rule 43 read with Rule 64 of C.P.C seeking attachment and sale of movable property of the Judgment Debtor for recovery of the decretal amount of Rs.49,46,303/-, the learned trial Court held that as per the calculation memo, dated 18.09.2018 filed by the decree holders, which is made stage wise calculating the amount as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act, 1894’) the amount of Rs.59,98,027/- is still due to be deposited by the Judgment Debtor after adjusting the amount already deposited by them, the Judgment Debtor is directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.59,98,027/- by 21.12.2018, failing which the trial Court directed to issue warrant for attachment of movables mentioned in the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Heroor, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, appearing for the petitioner and Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy.G, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the petitioner i.e., Land Acquisition Officer submits that the learned trial Court without considering the documentary evidence, mode of calculations as per the Act, 1894 and the decisions relied on by the petitioner, passed the impugned order. He also submits that the calculations which are made by the decree holders or judgment debtor ought to have calculated correctly, orders would be passed in respect of actual amounts due and payable by the judgment debtor to the decree holders and not merely confirming the calculations as submitted by the decree holders.

4. It is further submits that the actual amounts due and payable by the judgment debtor is a sum of Rs.35,37,579/- and not Rs.59,98,027/- as claimed by the decree holders and therefore, issuance of warrant to the satisfaction of decretal amount is incorrect and the same is therefore, liable to be set aside. He also further submits that the learned trial Court failed to realize that there is huge difference between the amounts calculated and claimed by the decree holders and the amounts due and payable by the judgment debtor, working out to Rs.24,60,448/-.

5. He further submits that the learned trial Court erred in not considering batch of Land Acquisition OPs which were decreed. Against which, State preferred appeals and the land losers filed Cross Appeals. In the said batch, three matters have attained finality on account of correct calculations and only on account of incorrect calculations done by the decree holders, the State unable to pay amount. He further submits that the cases of majority of land losers were not at all considered by the trial Court. He further submits that the trial Court depended totally on the calculations of the decree holders and committed grave error in issuing warrant of attachment only taking into consideration the calculations made by the decree holders, which are not in accordance with law.

6. He further submits that the learned trial Court without considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Appeal (Civil) No.1687 of 1998 passed the impugned order. He also submits that the calculations which are made are not in accordance with the provisions of Section