Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer, Hmda, ... vs B Yadagiri Reddy, Died As Per Lrs 2 To 4 And ... on 3 March, 2020
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.557, 558, 559
and 560 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issues involved in all these Civil Revisions Petitions are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2) C.R.P.No.557 of 2020 is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor, challenging the order dated 06.03.2015 passed in E.P.No.48 of 2011 in O.P.No.107 of 1984 by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the Court below allowed the said E.P basing on the calculation memo filed by the respondents herein/decree holders into Court on 29.12.2014 and directed the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor to deposit an amount of Rs.37,12,660/- into Court, failing which the decree holders were at liberty to follow due process of law.
3) C.R.P.No.558 of 2020 is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor, challenging the order dated 03.03.2015 passed in E.P.No.49 of 2011 in O.P.No.107 of 1984 by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the Court below allowed the said E.P basing on the calculation memo filed by the respondents herein/decree holders into Court on 29.12.2014 and directed the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor to deposit an amount of Rs.15,06,076/- into Court, failing which the decree holders were at liberty to follow due process of law. 2
4) C.R.P.No.559 of 2020 is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor, challenging the order dated 02.03.2015 passed in E.P.No.40 of 2011 in O.P.No.107 of 1984 by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the Court below allowed the said E.P basing on the calculation memo filed by the respondents herein/decree holders into Court on 29.12.2014 and directed the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor to deposit an amount of Rs.57,73,088/- into Court, failing which the decree holders were at liberty to follow due process of law.
5) C.R.P.No.560 of 2020 is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor, challenging the order dated 04.03.2015 passed in E.P.No.50 of 2011 in O.P.No.107 of 1984 by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the Court below allowed the said E.P basing on the calculation memo filed by the respondents herein/decree holders into Court on 18.11.2014 and directed the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor to deposit an amount of Rs.6,97,710/- into Court, failing which the decree holders were at liberty to follow due process of law.
6) Heard Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA)/revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor in all the CRPs, Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders in CRP Nos. 557, 558 and 560 of 2020, Sri G. Dhananjai, learned counsel for 3 the respondents/decree holders in CRP No.559 of 2020 and perused the record.
7) Learned Standing Counsel for the HMDA/revision petitioner would contend that the impugned orders passed by the Court below are erroneous on law and facts of the case. The Court below misinterpreted the decision in Gurpreeth Singh vs. Union of India1 and came to a wrong conclusion. The Court below erroneously observed that only 3/4th of the amount was deposited and as such, Rule of Appropriation concludes that whatever the amount deposited by the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor on 13.09.2014 should be adjusted towards interest at first and then the balance should be adjusted towards principal. The Court below ought not have considered the calculation memos submitted by the respondents/decree holders as they claimed interest on the principal amount taking the compensation of land value of Rs.80,000/- per acre from the date of taking possession without reference to initial deposit made as per the Award on 30.07.1982. The Court below ought to have accepted the calculation memos filed by the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor and held that the deposits made by the revision petitioner is in compliance of the decree in toto. It is also contended that grant of interest on solatium from the date of taking possession instead of entitlement from September, 2001 as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder vs. Union of India2 is illegal and ultimately prayed to set 1 (2006) 8 SCC 457 2 (2001) 7 SCC 211 4 aside the impugned orders by allowing the revision petitions as prayed for.
8) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ decree holders would contend that the Court below having placed reliance on the decision in Sunder's case (2 supra) and Gurpreet Singh's case (1 supra), calculated the amounts due under the decree, taking the dates of deposits into consideration and ultimately held that the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor is due Rs.37,12,660/-, Rs.15,06,076/-, Rs.57,73,088/- and Rs.6,97,710/- to the respondents/decree holders. There is no error in the calculations made in the memos dated 29.12.2014 and 18.11.2014 filed by the decree holders. The Court below is justified in upholding the same and passing the impugned orders. It is further contended that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of CPC is limited. The Court below has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested it and passed the impugned orders. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. All the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner/ Judgment Debtor are unsustainable and ultimately prayed to dismiss the civil revision petitions.
9) In view of the submissions made by both sides, the point that arises for determination is:
"Whether the impugned orders dated 06.03.2015, 03.03.2015, 02.03.2015 and 04.03.2015 passed in E.P.Nos.48, 49, 40 and 50 of 2011, respectively in O.P.No.107 of 1984 by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are liable to be set aside?"5
10) POINT: The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of CPC is limited. Under the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of CPC, the High Court may call for the record of any case, which has been decided by any Court subordinate to it, if such subordinate Court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, and may make such order in the case, as it thinks fit.
11) The Court below having perused the Para No.52 of the judgment rendered in Gurpreeth Singh's case (1 supra), determined that Rule of Appropriation is application in two ways i.e, i) if partial amount is paid, the first amount paid should be adjusted towards interest and left over amount should be adjusted towards principal and ii) if the entire compensation with all statutory benefits is deposited, then the amount should be adjusted towards principal and thereafter, towards interest. In the instant case, as per the admissions made by the parties, in the year 1994 only 3/4th of the compensation amount was deposited. As such, as per the Rule of Apportionment held in Gurpreeth Singh's case (1 supra), whatever the amount deposited at first instance, is required to be adjusted towards interest and thereafter, the left over amount is to be adjusted as principal. Having followed the said principle laid down in Gurpreeth Singh's case (1 supra), the Court below had gone into the calculation memos filed by the respondents/decree holders and held that those are in accordance with the Rule of Appropriation determined 6 in Gurpreeth Singh's case (1 supra) and upheld the calculations memos filed by the respondents/decree holders. The Court below has also determined the compensation payable as per the judgment rendered in Sunder's case (2 supra). In the instant case, in an appeal preferred before this Court, this Court was pleased to enhance the compensation and confirmed the other statutory benefits awarded to the respondents/decree holders. As far as the calculation of the compensation payable to the respondents/decree holders is concerned, the Court below having examined the same, upheld the calculation memos filed by the respondents/decree holders, relying on the decisions rendered in Gurpreeth Singh's case (1 supra) and Sunder's case (2 supra). In the instant case, neither of the three essential ingredients as envisaged under Section 115 of CPC were flouted by the Court below. The Court below has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested n it and passed the impugned orders. There is no perversity or illegality in the orders under challenge. Under these circumstances, all the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner/ Judgment Debtor are unsustainable. All the revision petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
12) Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revision petitions stands closed.
______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 03rd March, 2020.
scs