IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA DATE: 19.11.2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.5272 AND 5273 OF

2017; 1923, 1957, 2255 AND 10420 OF 2016 Between:

The Andhra Pradesh State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited. …Petitioner AND Thumuluri Narasimha Rao and another. ...Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

Since the parties and the issue involved in these Civil Revision Petitions are common, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and Sri M. Madhav Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-Decree Holder.

3. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) against the order, dated 20.11.2015, passed in E.P.No.113 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.No.52 of 1998, E.P.No.105 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.No.51 of 1998; E.P.No.114 of 2014 in L.A.O.PNo.56 of 1998; E.P.No.110 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.No.57 of 1998; E.P.No.103 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.No.54 of 1998 and E.P.No.109 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.No.65 of 1998 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, wherein the Execution Petitions filed under Order XXI Rule 11 of C.P.C. for realization of the E.P. amount by way of attachment of immovable property of Judgment Debtor No.2, were allowed directing the learned trial Court to issue attachment of warrant under Rule 54 and notice against him.

4. The main grievance of the revision petitioner before this Court is that, Judgment Debtor No.1 acquired land and the matter was referred to Civil Court. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits, such as 30% solatium on Market Value and 12% on additional market value from the date of publication to the date of Award and interest on it.

On reference, the Civil Court enhanced compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, Judgment Debtor No.2 preferred appeals before this Court and this Court dismissed the said appeals confirming judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court.

5. The further case of the petitioner is that earlier respondent No.1-Decree Holder filed Execution Petitions before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet and the same were closed as part satisfaction. Thereafter, he filed another E.P.No.31 of 2008 before the same Court and after establishment of Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Huzurnagar, the said E.P. transferred to the said Court and renumbered as E.P.No.109 of 2014.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Senior Civil Judge without considering the calculations of the revision petitioner- Judgment Debtor No.2 passed the impugned order only considered the calculations made by the Decree holder, which are incorrect. The further case of the petitioner is that the learned Judge without appreciating appropriation of principle, wrongly accepted the claim of the claimant regarding interest on additional market value, which is contrary to the decree made in the O.P. and contrary to the established principles of law i.e., in the case of Sunder v.

Union of India, 2001 (7) SCC 211

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued and contended that the learned Executing Court did not consider that claimant is claiming interest on interest and claiming compound interest which is not permissible under law. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad v. Tumuluri Laxmi Narasimha Rao and others2 and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order, dated 20.11.2015.

8. The Executing Court having perused the calculations made by both the parties held, that as the claimant-Decree holder is entitled to interest on all components of the award i.e., market value + value + 30%

2 C.R.P.No.1419 of