A decree-holder is entitled to appropriate amounts deposited in execution first towards interest and costs and then towards the principal in the event of a shortfall, unless the decree specifically directs otherwise, ensuring proper calculation of additional compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/JDR-2 under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, in E.P.No.22 of 2010 in E.P.No.46 of 2001 in O.P.No.18 of 1989.

2. Heard Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited for the petitioner and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s Bharadwaj Associates for the respondents.

3. The main grievance of the revision petitioner before this Court is that the learned trial Court erred in allowing the decree holder to re-open the calculation of amounts and adjusting the amounts already paid from the date of taking possession of the land, whereas in this case, the possession was taken prior to 4(1)

notification.

4. Further, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Executing Court did not consider that the company had deposited the comprehensive amounts under the interim order, consisting of interest, costs and principal amounts stipulated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the D.Hr is not entitled to reopen calculation memo from 05.01.1970 which is prior to 4(1) notification.

5. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondents/decree holders, whose land was acquired by the respondents, an award was passed on 20.02.1989 by the learned trial Court and the same was referred under the Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein the reference Court enhanced the compensation of Rs.15,000/- per acre by its order and decree dated 31.01.1992. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.24,000/- per acre by its judgment and decree dated 06.10.1998 in common judgment passed in A.S.No.1263 of

1990.

6. The respondent No.1/decree holder filed Execution Petition claiming Rs.21,41,939.43/-. It appears that pending the said Execution Petition, another Execution Petition No.22 of 2010, which is subject matter of the present revision petition was filed praying the Court, for attachment of Bank account of J.Dr’s shown in the schedule and by directing the manager concerned not to pay the amount pertaining to the said accounts and any other accounts to the J.Dr’s. and restraining them from withdrawing the said amounts until further orders of the Court under Order 21 Rule 30 and 46 of C.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial Court.

7. The J.Dr.2 who is the Singareni Colleries Company Limited, filed the present revision contending that the learned judge without giving credit to the amounts deposited by the petitioner/J.Dr.2 adjusted the entire amounts under the heads of interest and costs without deducting from principal amount, which is not permitted under law and however contended that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.10,79,969/- on 21.06.2011 pursuant to the interim order granted in C.M.P.No.2342 of 2011 and the respondent No.1 is entitled only Rs.3,99,028/- as per the calculation memo filed in support of the counter affidavit and the respondent No. 1 liable to return the remaining amount of Rs.6,80,941/- and contended that the said calculation memo was not considered and did not gave any reasons much less valid reasons in the impugned order.

8. Further, it is argued and contended that 12% additional amount was considered by the trial Court from the date of taking possession of land, which is prior to 4(1) notification.

9. It is also further argued and contended that the learned Judge failed to notice Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ordain award of

12% additional amount per ann