Page No.1 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Smt.Chittibomma Ashalatha,
II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
E.P.No.37 of 1998
in
O.P.No.193 of 1971
Between: 1.G.Bhoomaiah, died per Lrs Smt.G.Laxmamma W/o.Late G.Bhoomaiah, aged 65 years, Housewife.
2.G.Jagannadham @ Jaganatham S/o.Late G.Bhoomaiah aged 32 years, Occ: Student, R/o.12-1-1371, Lalaguda, Secunderabad. ...Decree Holders
And
Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Referring officer, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. ….Judgment Debtor
This petition is coming on 23.10.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Janardhan, learnedAdvocate for the Decree holders and Sri.M.Venkata Ramana Yadav, learned AGP for the Judgment Debtor, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:
: O R D E R :
This is an Execution Petition filed by the decree holder under Order XXI
Rule 43 of CPC to attach the movable properties shown in the schedule belonging to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad/ JDR and auction the same for due realisation of the balance decreetal amount of
Page No.2 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
Rs.10,63,250.28 under Rule 64 of CPC and pay the same to the decree holders, basing on a Judgment and Decree passed in OP.No.173 of 1971, dated 22.12.1977, modified in CCCA.No.102 of 1978, dated 01.04.1986 even after deducting the amounts realized by the D.Hrs by filing EP.No.16 of 1978 for
Rs.2,23,883.43 paise and EP.No.62 of 1987 for Rs.3,39,600.84 paise.
The EP schedule movable properties are, chair of JDR, Almarah, tables, car, jeep, fans and any other articles which may be pointed out by the decree holders at the time of execution of the extent of EP amount.
2. Counter affidavit dated 17-10-2000 filed by the Special Deputy
Collector Y. Sangu Babu of Land Acquisition (General) submitting that he is well acquainted with the facts of the case and that he denied the contents of E.P filed by the decree holder except those specifically admitted and that the calculation memo filed by the decree holder is frivolous, and the ame is filed with a malafied intention to grab more monetary benefit by misleading the facts and wanted to gain the undue advantage. The present E.P is filed by the decree holder is false with extreme wrong calculation memo. It is submitted that as his predecessor deposited the decreetal amount as per the calculation memo duly prepared in accordance with judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in
CCCA No.102/1978 in OP No.193/ 1971 with reference to payment particulars made to the decree holder are submitted here with. It is pertinent to mention that the decree holder while filing number of execution petitions had received an
Page No.3 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 amount of Rs.5,68,970.67. Thus there is a balance amount of Rs.47,451/- to be paid, the same will be deposited in short time. Hence may be pleased to pass orders in the interest of justice accordingly.
3.Counter filed on behalf of JDR/Special Deputy Collector, Land
Acquisition General, Hyderabad on 12-10-2012, submitting that land acquired admeasuring 9.17 guntas in Sy.No.36,37,39,40,41,49 & 50 at Lalaguda,
Malkajgiri, Hyderabad for Railways vide Notification dated 13.7.1965. Land
Acquisition Officer passed Award on 31.8.1968 awarding the compensation. The claimants sought for reference Under Sec.18 of Land Acquisition Act in
OP.No.193/1971 before this court, in respect of acquired land. The said O.P was
decreed on 22.12.1977 as follows:
“This court doth order and decree as follows:
i. That the referring officer do pay to the claimant the sum of Rs.17,584.51 ps., (including 15% solatium) together with interest on the enhanced compensation of Rs.15,943.51 ps., @ 4% per annum from the date of taking over possession ie., 27.6.1970 till the date of realization as detailed below.
But in respect of Survey No.37, the date of taking possession of the land by the Government is 3.2.1966 and the interest shall be calculated from the date amended as per orders in I.A.443/1978 dt.24.11.1980; that the rest of the claim of the claimant be and is hereby rejected; that the referring officer do also pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.2002.00 towards the cost of the petition; that the
Page No.4 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 enhancement awarded in this OP will be subject to the reference answered u/s 30 of L.A.Act." ii.Referring officer filed CCCA.No.102/1978 before the Hon'ble High Court of AP which was disposed off by judgment and decree dt.01.04.1986. As per the decree by the Hon’ble Registry, which reads as follows:
" this court dismissing the appeal and in modification of the decree of the lower court doth order and decree as follows:
1. That the claimants are entitled to the benefits of the amended sections 23(2), 28 and 34 of the L.A.Act; That the referring officer, shall pay the claimant solatium at the rate of 30% on the entire compensation instead of 15% solatium, granted by the lower court as per section 23(2) of the Amended Land Acquisition
Act; That the referring officer also pay the claimant interest @9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land till one year and 15% per annum thereafter till the date of realization of the amount as per section 23 and 34 of the
Amended L.A.Act; That subject to the modification as stated in clauses 1 to 3 supra, the decree of the lower court stand confirmed in other respects; The lower court do calculate the amounts due only in respect of solatium and interest to the appeal in the light of direction contained in judgment herein less the amounts already paid if any, and; That there be no order as to costs in this appeal." iii.However, the operative portion of the judgment in CCCA.No.102/1978 dt.01.04.1986 reads as follows:
Page No.5 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 “In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the court below that for these lands also a compensation had to be paid at Rs.5/-per square yard. We therefore confirm the compensation awarded by the trial court for the acquired land. By the amendment Act 68 of 1984 the
Land Acquisition Act has been amended. By virtue of Sec. 30 of the Amendment
Act a limited retrospective effect is given to certain provisions of the Amendment
Act. As a result the claimants will be entitled to the enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% as contemplated by the amended Section 28. The claimants will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a., etc U/s. 28 on the excess determined by the court from the date on which possession of the land was taken by the
Collector till the date of payment of such excess into court. These payments will however be made after taking credit for any amounts already paid towards interest. With the aforesaid direction the appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the lower court stands modified to the extent of solatium and interest as indicated above. We make no order as to costs.” iv.As seen from the same, the DHR, in any event not entitled for interest at 15% p.a., in terms of Sec.34 (provision) of Amended Land Acquisition Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984, more particularly Sec.30 of Land Acquisition Act 68/1984.
Page No.6 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 v.The Decree Holders filed EP.No.16/1978 seeking for realization of
Rs.2,22,565.07 ps., and received entire compensation amount of Rs.2,23,888.43 on 27.03.1979 ps., and in the said EP was closed on 22.09.1979.
vi. The Decree Holders filed this EP i.e., EP.No.35/1981 for realization of
Rs.5,486.60 claiming to be the difference with reference to possession and this amount was deposited 16.06.1982 and E.P was closed.
vii.The Decree Holders filed EP.No.62/1987 claiming Rs.3,55,854.77 ps., this amount was claimed towards award and solatium at 30% and that the JDR deposited Rs.3,39,600.64 ps., on 13.04.1992 and that Calculation memo dt.21.08.1989 filed in EP.No.62/1987 by DHRs is filed herewith and that the EP was filed consequent to the modification by judgment and decree in
CCCA.No.102/1978 dt.01.04.1986, thus JDR deposited the entire decretal amount including the difference and the said E.P was dismissed for default on 22.02.1995 and that the Decree Holder withdrew the amount.
viii.The Decree Holder filed EP.No.37/1998 claiming further amount of
Rs.10,63,250.28 ps., though no further amount is payable and the calculation memo in this E.P. 26.03.1998 is filed herewith along with copy of EP and the
JDRs deposited a sum of Rs.47,451.33 ps., on 04.09.2001 in this EP and the
J.DRs also filed a calculation Memo and the copy of the same is enclosed herewith for ready reference. As per the said Memo a sum of Rs.44,458.58 Ps.
was deposited and that it appears that the Divisional Railway Manager (Works)
Page No.7 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
Hyderabad Division, Secunderabad, directly remitted a sum of Rs.1,44,924/- dt.17.05.2004 which was credited to ΕΡ.Νο.37/1998 and this is excess amount.
On 04.11.2004 a memo was filed on behalf of DHR that the DHRs are entitled to receive the deposited amount of Rs.1,44,924/-.
ix.The entire amount is deposited towards the total amount payable under the decree and the amount appropriated against the principal amount both the DHR and JDr, and the respective EPs have been either closed/and that the calculation memo dt.21.12.2001 filed by DHRs in this EP whereunder a sum of
Rs.5,60,638.16 ps., was claimed by the DHR and another calculation memo is filed on 20.07.2012 where under the amount due is shown as Rs.8,91,571.72ps., x.The DHRs are seeking to reopen, re-calculate the payments made in terms of decree and notwithstanding the fact that execution proceedings were closed and that this is a case where the decree in CCCA.No.102/1978 clearly specifies that solatium at 30% was payable and the law as it stood then, did not envisage payment of interest on solatium and therefore there is no direction to that effect in the decree and further the decree itself states that the lower court is required to calculate interest part specifically in accordance with clause-5 of decree in
CCCA. Therefore the interest on solatium is not payable and parties were very clear about this and full satisfaction memo was recorded and that in Sunder's case it is made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that re-appropriation or fresh appropriation is not permissible.
Page No.8 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 xi.The DHRs have been claiming different amounts by resorting to different calculations in various execution petitions and that the entire amount claimed in
EP Nos. 16 of 1978 and EP.No.35 of 1981 was paid. EP No.62 of 1987 was filed by the DHR claiming amounts as per the decree passed in CCCA No.102 of 1978 dt.1.4.1986 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
They now seeking to claim interest over solatium and other components right from its acquisition, which was never claimed in the earlier Execution Petitions and that the entire amount as payable under Judgment and decree in OP
No.193/1971 as modified by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad in CCCA No.102 of 1978, was deposited by the J.DRs on 13.4.1992
before this court and the said execution petition was dismissed on 22.2.1995.
Therefore the present Execution Petition is not maintainable.
xii.It is not open for the DHRs to claim amounts in different execution petitions without reference to the calculation memos filed in the earlier execution petitions and that the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh made it clear in the decree passed in CCCA No.102/ 1978 that by virtue of Sec.30 of the Amendment
Act, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% as contemplated under Sec.28 of the Amendment Act.
xiii.The claimants are liable to pay interest at 9% p.a. u/Sec.28 of the
Amendment Act on the excess determined amount from the date on which possession of the land was taken by the District Collector till the date of payment
Page No.9 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 of such excess amount into the court and that it is made clear that the amounts will however be made after taking credit for any amounts already paid towards interest and that the solatium at 15% and interest at 4% p.a. from the date of taking over possession was already deposited and paid to the D.Hrs and that consequently, the D.Hrs. were entitled to only for different amounts and difference of solatium and that the principle amount was already paid, the calculation memos now filed is therefore, not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
xiv. The JDRs having been paid the entire amounts and the execution petitions having not been terminated, it is not open for the D.Hrs. to file fresh execution petitions claiming further amounts contrary to their own calculations made in the earlier execution petitions.
xv. This was the case where our Hon'ble High Court clearly specified in the judgment and decree passed in CCCA No.102 of 1978 dt. 1.4.1986 that the amounts are required to be paid under various heads including solatium and
additional market value in terms of the amended terms. Infact, the amended
provisions have no application to the present facts of the case, in as much as the
Notification u/Sec.4 of the Act, the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer and the Decree passed by this court in OP No.193 of 1971 was much prior to the amendments which were brought about with effect from the year 1984 and that the DHRs are therefore, not entitled for any amounts under these heads.
Page No.10 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
However, as the Hon'ble High Court by Judgment and Decree dt.1.4.1986 passed in CCCA No.102 of 1978 clearly held as to the payment of solatium at 30% and interest at 9% p.a. the same was deposited by the JDR in obedience to the directions, however, the DHrs are now claimed/claiming interest on other components which were never envisaged or directed in the Judgment and Decree passed in CCCA No.102 of 1978 and that the D.Hrs. are now seeking to go beyond the said Judgment and Decree and that the Law laid down as held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi even in respect of SUNDER'S Case
as clarified has no application to the present facts of the case and that this is a case where the entire amount was already deposited and no further amount remained to be paid and the decree is already satisfied hence the JDR sought to dismiss this EP No.37 of 1998 in OP No.193 of 1971 in the interest of justice.
4.Counter affidavit filed by the JDR, on 4-9-2025, submitting that the
OP.No.193 / 1971, this court enhanced market value at the rate of Rs. 5 per
square yard in the judgement dated 22-12-1977, and the decree holder filed EP
No.16/1978 for realisation of enhanced compensation, the office of the JDR deposited entire enhanced compensation in OP.No.193/1971 for Rs.2,23,888.43 in the said E.P on 27-3-1979, and that the decree holder received the enhanced compensation deposited in OP.No.193 / 1971, and the said EP No.16 / 1978 was closed on 22-9-1979. The Land Acquisition Officer filed CCCA No.102 / 1978
before the Honourable High Court, againtst the enhancement made in OP No.193
/ 1971, which passed judgement and decree on 1-4-1986 by confirming the
Page No.11 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 compensation awarded by the trial court at the rate of Rs. 5 per square yard for the acquired land, and further held that by virtue of section 30 of Amendment
Act, a limited prospective effect is given to provisions of the amendment act. As a result, the claimants will be entitled to the enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% as contemplated by the amended section 28, and that the claimants will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 % per annum under section 28 on the excess determined by the court from the date on which possession of the land was taken by the Collector till the date of payment of such excess into court. These amounts will however be made after taking credit for any amounts already paid towards interest. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the lower court stand modified to the extent of solatium and interest as indicated above, and there is no order as to costs. In obedience of the judgement of the Honourable High Court in CCCA No.102 / 1978, the land acquisition officer deposited the following amounts in the execution petitions filed by the decree holder before this court as follows.
i. In EP No.35 / 1981 for realisation of Rs.5486.60 claiming to be the differential amount and that amount was deposited on 16-06-1982 by the land acquisition officer and the said EP was closed.
ii. The decree holder filed EP No.62/ 1987 claiming Rs.3,55,854.77 paisa towards enhanced amount in award and solatium at 30 %. In this regard, the land acquisition officer deposited entire amount including a difference in solatium at
Page No.12 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 the rate of Rs.3,39,600.64 on 13-04-1992 and the said EP was dismissed for default on 22-02-1995 and the decree holder withdrew the said amount.
iii. Again EP No.37 / 1998 was filed by the decree holder for realisation of 30 % solatium and 9 % interest as per section 28 of Land Acquisition Act and the land acquisition officer deposited Rs.47,451.33 paisa on 4-9-2001 and the
Divisional Railway Manager directly remitted Rs.1,44,924/- on 4-11-2004 and the decree holder withdrew the amounts from the City Civil Court in this EP
No.37/1998.On 20-07-2012 where the due is shown as Rs.8,91,571.72 ps in this regard, a counter filed for dismissal of EP, on the ground that, entire enhanced compensation as per the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in CCCA No.102/1978 was received by the decree holders and the same is pending. Writ Appeal
No.673/2004 filed before Hon’ble High Court, regarding title dispute, about this particular land and the same was dismissed on 9.4.2004. Further the WP
No.23261/2008 filed by the DHR herein for re-conveyance of land on the ground of alleged non utilization, the same was dismissed on 23.11.2016 Hence this court may dismiss the execution petition filed by the decree holders.
5.Heard the arguments submitted by both the learned counsel. Perused the calculation memos submitted by the decree holders and the JDR/Special deputy collector, Land Acquisition officer, (General) Hyderabad.
Page No.13 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
6.Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the decree holders are entitled for the relief of Sale of EP schedule attached movable properties belonging to the JDR for realization of balance decreetal amount shown in the E.P. as prayed for?
POINT:
7.It is the case of the decree holder that as per the decree and judgment passed in OP No.193/1971, dated 22.12.1977 and the modified decree and judgment in CCCA No.102/1978, dated 1-4-1986, even after deducting the amounts deposited by the JDR, for Rs.2,23,883.43 paise, in EP No.16/1978, and
Rs.3,39,600.64 paise, in EP No.62/1987, there is due of Rs.10,63,250.28 payable by the JDR. Hence, this Execution Petition.
8.Counter filed by the Special Deputy Collector of Land Acquisition Officer,
General, Hyderabad,(JDR), at the time of receipt of notice of attachment, and also at the time of receipt of sale notice, contending that, the entire amount as per the judgment and decree, of this court in OP No.193/1971, modified judgment and decree in CCCA No.102/1978, dated 1-4-1986, paid to the decree holders, in fact, excess amount credited into the account of this EP No.37/1998, in OP
No.193 / 1971, and that this EP is not maintainable and that calculation memo filed by the JDR to that effect, and that the calculation memos filed by the decree holders are with wrong calculations, hence, this EP is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Page No.14 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
9.This court would intend to reiterate the operative portion of
Judgment passed in OP No.193/1971, dated 22-12-1977, which is as follows:
“In the result, the claimant Bhoomaiah is declared, entitled to enhancement of compensation for Ac.7-02 guntas 90 ¾ yards, in Sy.Nos.36, 37,39,40,41 & 50 @ Rs.5/- per sq.yard and a sum of Rs.1,107/- for the Trees standing in the lands with 15% Solatium and with interest @ 4% p.a on the enhanced compensation, from the date of taking possession till the date of realization. The rest of the claims of all the claimants are rejected”.
10.The decree in CCCA No.102 / 1978, dated 1-4-1986, is as follows:
“1. That the Claimants are entitled to the benefits of the amended Sections 23 (2), 28 and 34 of the L.A. Act;
2. That the Referring Officer shall pay the claimant/s solatium at the rate of 30% on the entire compensation instead of 15% solatium granted by the lower Court as per Section 23(2) of the Amended L.A. Act;
3. That the Referring Officer do also pay the claimant/s interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land till one year and 15% per annum thereafter till the date of realization of the amount as per Sections 28 and 34 of the Amended L.A. Act;
4. That subject to the modification as stated in clauses 1 to 3 supra, the decree of the Lower Court do stand confirmed in other respects;
Page No.15 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
5. That Lower Court do calculate the amounts due only in respect of solatium and interest to the appellant in the light of the directions contained in the
Judgment herein less the amounts already paid if any; and
6. that there be no order as to costs in this appeal.”
11.The operative portion of the judgment passed in CCCA No.102 by 1978, dated 1-4-1986, is as follows:
“The learned Government Pleader is not in a position to say whether any appeal was filed against the judgment of the court in O.P. 206/71 circumstances we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the court below that for these lands also a compensation had to be paid at Rs.5/- per square yard. We therefore confirm the compensation awarded by the trial court for the acquired land.
By the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 the Land Acquisition Act has been amended. By virtue of Sec. 30 of the Amendment Act a limited retrospective effect is given to certain provisions of the Amendment Act. As a result the claimants will be entitled to the enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% as contemplated by the amended section 28. The claimants will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. etc. u/s28 on the excess determine by the court from the date on which possession of the land was taken by the Collector till the date of payment of such excess into court. These payments will however be made after taking credit for
Page No.16 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 any amounts already paid towards interest. With the aforesaid direction the appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the lower court stands modified to the extent of solatium and interest as indicated above. We make no order as to costs.”.
12.Now it is pertinent to go through all the Calculation memos filed by the decree holders.
i. Calculation memo filed by the DHR along with this Execution petition
in the month of March, 1998 is that 1Total amount of compensation as per the High court orders in C.C.C.A.No. 102 of 1978 dated: 1-4-1986 on 34,212 Sq. Yards @ Rs.5/- perRs.1,72,167-00 sq.yards (34,212 x 5 2+ 30% solatiumRs.51,650-10
Rs.2,23,817-10 3+ Interest 9% P.A for one year i.e., Rs.20,143-53 from 27-6-1970 to 26-6-1971
Rs.2,43,960-63 4+ Interest 15% P. A. from 26-6-1971 to Rs.2,83,603-50 27-3-1979 till the date of first payment
Rs.5,27,564-13 5- Less amount received on 27-3-1979 inRs.2,23,883-43 E.A.No.60/79 in E.P.No.16/78.
Balance amount Rs.3,03,680-70 6 + Interest 15% P.A from 28-3-1979 to Rs.5,92,177-36 24-4-1992
Rs.8,95,856-06 + costs 2,002-00
Balance amount Rs.8,97,860-06
Page No.17 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 7Deduct the amount deposited on 13-4-1992 in E.P.Rs.3,39,600-69 No. 62/87 8Total balance amount to be paid by the J.D after Rs.5,58,259-37 the withdrawal of above amount 9Interest on Rs. 5,58,259-37 from 14-4-1992 upto Rs.5,04,990-91 the date of filing E.P.
Total E.P.Claim Rs.10,63,250-28ps
(Rupees ten lakhs sixty three thousand two hundred fifty and twenty
eight paise only)
ii. Calculation memo filed by the Decree holder on 21.12.2001 is as
follows:
Compensation (@Rs.5/- for 7 acres 02 guntas 90 3/4 Sq. Yds171063.75
Solatiúm51319.13
Total Compensation222382.88
Paid at the time of21227 award
Principal Amount201155.88
Int.9% per annum from 27.6.70 to 26.6.7118104.03
Int.15% per annum from 26.6.71 to 27.9.78218757.08 (7 years 3 months)
Total Interest236861.11
Amount Paid on223883.43 27.9.78
Balance Interest12977.68
Int.15% per annum from 28.9.78 to 13.4.92 (13 years 6 months408598.07 15 days)
Total Interest421575.75
Amount Paid on339600.64 13.4.92
Balance Interest81975.11
Int.@15% per annum from 14.4.92 to 03.9.2001 314306.15 (10 years 5 months)
Page No.18 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
Total Interest396281.26
Amount Paid on47451.33 03.9.2001
Total Interest348829.93
Principal Amount201155.08
Costs2002
Cost of Trees1107
Int.15% from 4.9.2001 to 3.12.2001 (3 months)7,543-35
Total Compensation560638.16 Due
Therefore it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant the sum of Rs.5,60,638.16 ps by putting the attached properties of the Judgment Debtor for sal in the interest of justice.
iii.Calculation memo filed by the DHR on 4.7.2002 is as follows:
Compensation (@Rs.5 for 7 Acres 02 Guntas 90 3/4 Sq.- 171063.75 Yds)
Solatium- 51319.13
Trees compensation- 1107
Total- 223489.88 Compensation
Paid at time of- 21227.25 Award
Principal Amount- 202262.63
Interest @ 9% per annum from 27/06/70 to 26/06/71- 18203.63 (Calculated on principal amount of Rs. 2,02,262.63)
Interest @15% per annum from 26/06/71 to 27/09/78 - 219960.57 (Calculated on principal amount of Rs.2,02,262.63) 7 Years =Rs 2,12,375.73ps. 3 Months = Rs 7,584.84ps.
Total Interest - 238164.2
Page No.19 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
Amount Paid on- 223883.43 27/09/78
Balance Interest - 14280.77
Interest @15% per annum from 28/09/78 to 13/04/92- 413374.08 (Calculated on principal amount of Rs. 2,02,262.63) 13 Years =Rs 3,94,412.07ps 7 Months=Rs 17,697.96ps 15 days) =Rs 1,264.05.
Total Interest 427654.85
Amount paid on339600.64 13/04/92
Balance Interest 88054.21
Interest @15% per annum from 14/04/92 to 03/09/2001285695.91 (Calculated on principal amount of Rs. 2,02,262.63) 9 Years= Rs2,73,054.51ps. 5 Months= Rs.12,641.40ps.
Total Interest 373750.12
Amount 47451.33 deposited on 03/09/2001
Balance Interest 326298.79
Principal 201155.88
Costs 2002
Amount Due 529456.67
Interest @15% per annum from 04/09/2001 to 03/07/200225282.8 (Calculated on principal amount of Rs. 2,02,262.63) 10 Months = Rs.25,282.80ps
Total Amount - 554739.47
Due
It is therefore prayed that this court be pleased to grant the sum of Rs.5,54,739.47Ps to the D.HRs by putting the attached properties of the Judgment Debtor to sale, in the interest of Justice.
iv.Calculation memo filed by the Decree holders on 20.7.2012 is as follows:
Page No.20 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
Compensation @ Rs. 5 for 7 acres 02 guntas 90 3/4 Sq.yards 171063.75
Solatium51319.13
Trees compensation1107
Total compensation223489.88
Paid at the time of Award21227.25
principal amount202262.63
Interest @ 9% per annum from 27/06/1970 to 26/06/197118203.63 Calculated on principal amount of Rs.2,02,262.63
Interest @ 15% per annum from 26/06/1971 to 27/09/1978219960.57 On Principal of Rs. 202262.63 7 years= Rs. 212375.73 3 months =Rs.7584.84
Total Interest238164.2
Amount paid on 27/09/1978223883.43
Balance interest14280.77
Interest @ 15% per annum from 28/09/1978 to 13/04/1992412374.08 On Principal of Rs. 202262.63 13 years=394,412.07 7 months=17,697.96 15 days=1264.05
Total Interest427654.85
Amount paid on 13/04/1992339600.64
Balance Interest88054.21
Interest @ 15% per annum from 14/04/1992 to 03/09/2001285695.91 On Principal of Rs. 202262.63 9 years=273,054.51 5 months =12,641.40
Total Interest373750.12
Amount deposited on 3/9/200147451.33
Balance Interest326298.79
Interest @ 15% per annum on 04/09/2001 to 6/07/2012361008.3 10 years 10 months
Total Interest due687307.09
Principal202262.63
Page No.21 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
Total Amount889569.72
EP costs2002
Total Amount due891571.72 It is submitted that to grant the sum of Rs.8,91,571.72 to DHRs by putting the attached properties of JDR to sale in the interest of justice.
13.This court perused the Writ Petition filed by the decree holders:
Order in WP No.23261/2008 dated 23.11.2016 filed by the son of original
DHR, challenging action of respondent/Special Deputy Officer, Land Acquisition
Officer, Hyderabad in not transferring the property acquired to the petitioner on the ground that the same was not utilized for the purpose it was acquired, the said
WP was dismissed by observing that “Indisputably, land in question was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of expansion of city i.e.
construction of residential/commercial building under planned development scheme by the Meerut Development Authority and that major portion of the land has already been utilized by the Authority. Merely because some land was left at the relevant time, that does not give any right to the Authority to send proposal to the Government for release of the land in favour of the land owners. The impugned orders passed by the High Court directing the Authority to press the
Resolution are absolutely unwarranted in law.
In view of the above position of law, the other plea of the petitioner for redelivery of land on the ground of its non-utilisation does not deserve consideration.
Page No.22 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
14.The calculation memo filed on behalf of JDR on 13.12.2012 :
Amount deposited on 6.3.1979Rs.2,23,888.00
EP No.16/1978 closed on22.09.1979
Amount claimed In EP. No.62/1987Rs.3,55,855.00
Amount paid on 13.04.1992Rs.3,39,600.00
On 27.06.1970 to 26.09.1987 ie., 17 years, 2 months & 28Rs.2,69,393.00 days 9% on 1,73,584.00 (Principle amount + solatium of 15%) enhanced as decree in OP.No.193/1971)
Solatium 15% (balance)Rs.22,641.00
Interest on Rs.1,73,548/- from 27.09.1987 to 13.04.1992Rs.3,67,007.00 @ 9% Rs.74,973/- (4 years, 6 months, 18 days), total amount payable as on 13.04.1992
Amount paid on 13.04.1992Rs.3,39,600.00
DueRs.27,407.00
Amount paid on 04.09.2001Rs.47,451.33
Amount due as on 13.04.1992Rs.27,407.00 (calculate interest @9% on Rs.27,407/-from 13.04.1992 toRs.22,355.00 04.09.2001 ie., 9 years 9 days)
Total amount payable as on 04.09.2001 ie., 27,407 +Rs.48,772.00 Rs.22,355.00 (Rs.48,772.00 - Rs.47,451.33)
Less: Due payable as on 04.09.2001Rs.2,321.00
Amount deposited on 17.06.2002Rs.44,458.58
Interest on Rs.2,321/- @9% p.a., from 04.09.2001 toRs.2,492.77 17.06.2002 ie., 9 months 13 days Rs.2,321/-
Excess amount paid on 17.06.2002Rs.41,965.81
Page No.23 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
Amount paid on 02.05.2004Rs.1,44,924.00
Interest @ 9%p.a., on excess amount Rs.41,965.81 fromRs.39,405.84 17.06.2002 to 11.12.2012 ie., 10 years, 5 months 6 days
Interest @9%p.a., on Rs.1,44,924.00 from 02.05.2004 toRs.1,08,366.00 11.12.2012 ie., 8years 3 months and 21 days
Total due as on 11.12.2012
Excess amount paid (41,965.81 + 1,44,924)Rs.1,86,889.81
Interest on excess amount paidRs.1,47,771.84
Total dueRs.3,34,661.65 The DHR is liable to pay Rs.3,34,661.65 to the JDR which is the excess amount paid to DHr.
15.This court sent the E.P record to the Accounts Section and the Accounts clerk of I Senior Civil Judge, certified that a sum of Rs.47,451/- was kept in
Fixed Deposit in Indian Bank, Begumbazar branch on 16.11.2002 in this
E.P.No.37/1998 in OP.No.193/1971. Another sum of Rs.1,44,924/- was kept in
Fixed deposit on 29.3.2005 in Bank of India, Dilsuknagar branch, Hyderabad in this EP No.37/1998 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad.
16.The JDR has been contending that it already sent the above noticed amounts to the credit of E.P and that the DHRs had withdrawn, Rs.2,23,883/- by filing EP No.16/1978 and Rs.3,39,600/- by filing EP No.62/1987. It is further contended by the JDR that after disposal of CCCA No.102/1978, the DHR filed the present petition claiming excessive amount of Rs.10,63,250/- and that separate calculation memo filed by the JDR mentioning that, it need not pay any
Page No.24 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 amount to the Decree holders and that the entire amount payable to the Decree holder was already paid and that the calculations shown by the DHRs in the calculation memos are false. Hence, this E.P is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
17.On considering the contents of the Execution Petition, counter affidavits filed by the JDR at the time of receipt of notice under Order XXI Rule 43 of
CPC, at the time of warrant issued by this court under Order XXI Rule 43 of
CPC and also at the time of receipt of sale notice under Order XXI Rule 64 of
CPC by mentioning that entire amounts paid by it to the DHR, however the decree holder without showing the payments made by the JDR has been claiming excessive amount for illegal gain. This court, as noticed above, gone through the calculation memos filed by DHRs which clearly establish the fact that, the DHRs are showing the calculations as to their whims and fancies and the said calculation memos filed on different dates by the learned counsel for the DHRs are not reflecting correct calculations and are differ from each other. Hence, this court considers that the decree holders did not approach this court with correct calculations. Further, the DHRs did not choose to file rejoinder to the counter affidavits filed by the JDR / Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (General) Hyderabad, by denying the averments mentioned in the counter affidavits filed by the JDR. The DHRs have not filed affidavit along with the
E.P. It is pertinent to note that as on the date of filing of this E.P i.e., on 26.3.1998 vide SR.No.1427/1998 the DHR has shown the balance amount to be
Page No.25 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 payable by the JDR for Rs.10,63,250/-. It is pertinent to note that the calculation memos filed by the DHR on 21.12.2001, it is shown that the JDR is liable to pay
Rs.5,60,638/-; O n 4.7.2002 , it is shown that JDR is liable to pay Rs.5,54,739/-;
On 20.07.2012, it is shown that the JDR is liable to pay Rs.8,91,571.72ps.
18.The above noticed calculation memos reflecting the DHRs themselves are not clear regarding the balance amount to be recovered by them from the JDR.
As to the certification of the Accounts Clerk of I Senior Civil Judge’s Court,
CCC, Hyderabad, there is an amount of Rs.47,451/- + Rs.1,44,924/- =
Rs.1,92,375/-.
19.The DHRs can take the said amount by filing cheque petition by giving due notice to the JDR and his counsel, by showing correct calculations. As to the
JDR, immediately after filing of this E.P, the balance due amount was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer to the credit of E.P account in the year 2002 and 2005. The DHR instead of taking the said amount by filing cheque petition by showing the correct calculations by giving due notice to JDR has been pursuing this Execution petition against the JDR which is a Government Body/Land
Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector (General), Hyderabad for the last more than 25 years.
20.Further filing of writ petition No.23261/2008 dated 23.11.2016 by the
DHRs for re-delivery of land which was however dismissed is no way relevant to be present Execution proceedings. Further the writ petition filed by third party
Page No.26 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025
Zaibunnisa Begum and another claiming title over the acquired land in
WP.No.15979/2003 dated 3.12.2003, which was however dismissed is also no
way relevant to the present Execution proceedings. The present Execution proceedings which is filed by the Decree holders basing on judgment and decree in OP. No.193/1971 dated 22.12.1977 and modified Judgment and decree in
CCCA No.102/1978 dated 1.4.1986, the same is within limitation. As rightly pointed out by the learned AGP and the JDR/LAO in their counter affidavits that, this EP is not maintainable as the JDR already deposited the amounts due under the decree in CCCA No.102/1978 dated 1.4.1986 and the DHRs already withdrawn amounts. However an amount of Rs.1,92,375/- is lying in the E.P
Account as on date, as to the certification of Accounts Clerk. As the DHRs have not approached this court with correct calculations and they filed the main E.P by mentioning the due as Rs.10,63,250.28 ps as on 26.3.1998 but the subsequent calculation memo filed by the DHRs themselves in the year 2002 reflecting
Rs.5,54,739.47ps and calculation memo filed in the year 2012 reflecting
Rs.8,91,571.72ps. Therefore, this court considers that there are no merits in this
Execution Petition. As to the calculation memo filed by the JDR as noticed above is reflecting that already the balance amount payable to the DHR credited into the
E.P Account and infact, excess amount deposited. For all the reasons noticed above, this court considers that, the DHRs approached this court with wrong calculations as rightly contended by the JDR and the balance amount to be recovered by the DHRs from the JDR is already in the E.P account and the DHRs
Page No.27 of 27 EP No.37 of 1998 in O.P.No.193 of 1971
Dt.29.10.2025 can take the amount which they are legally entitled by filing cheque application after giving due notice to the JDR and his counsel. Thus this court considers that the DHRs are not entitled for the relief to put for sale of attached movable propperties belong to JDR and this E.P is liable to be dismissed. Point is answered accordingly against the DHRs and in favour of the JDR.
In the result, Execution petition is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29 th day of October, 2025.
Sd/-
II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Nil
Sd/-
II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.