Sri K. Pattabhi Rama Rao

1

EP 23/2012 IN LAOP 270/1987

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: K.PATTABHI RAMA RAO,

Senior Civil Judge,

Peddapalli.

Thursday, the 7th day of February, 2019

E.P. NO.23OF 2012

in L.A.O.P. NO. 270 OF 1987

Between:-

1.Korapati Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. Peraiah (died) per L.R. Claimant No.13.

2.Perati Vaman Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged 72 years,

3.Perati Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Papi Reddy (died) his L.R. Claimant No.10.

4.Perati Buchi Reddy, S/o. Papi Reddy (died) his L.R. Claimant No.11.

5.Perati Ram Reddy, S/o. Mutha Reddy, Aged 69 years,

6.Perati Ram Chandra Reddy, S/o. Papi Reddy (died) his L.R. Claimant No.15.

7.Perati Veera Reddy, S/o. Mutha Reddy (died) his L.R. Claimant No.16.

8.Perati Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Papi Reddy (died) his L.R. Claimant No.12.

9.Mididoddi Venkaiah, S/o. Purushotham (died) his L.R. Claimant No.17.

10. Perati Venkat Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy, Aged 70 years,

11. Perati Gopal Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy, Aged 69 years, (died) his L.R. Claimant No.17.

12. Perati Raji Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged 84 years, (Claimants No.10 to 12 are brought on record as L.Rs of Claimants No.2, 4 and 8 as per orders passed in I.A.Nos.7091/1993 and 7012/1993 dt.19.04.1995).

13. Korapati Rama Rao, S/o. Late Korapati Satyanarayana Murthy, Aged 58 years, (brought on record as L.R. of Claimant No.1 as per order dt.17.08.2006 made in LAAS MP No.1768/2006).

14. Perati Raji Reddy,S/o. Late Perati Ram Chandra Reddy, Aged 59 years, (L.R. of Claimant No.6 brought on record as per the order dt.17.08.2006 made in LAAS MP No.1769/2006).

15. Perati Raji Reddy, S/o. Late Perati Veera Reddy, Aged 62 years, (L.R. of Claimant No.7 brought on record as per order dt.17.08.2006 made in LAAS MP No.1770/2006).

16. Mididoddi Mallamma, W/o. Late Venkaiah, Aged 68 years, (L.R. of Claimant No.9 brought on record as per order dt.13.08.2009 made in ASMP No.1239/2009).

2

EP 23/2012 IN LAOP 270/1987

17. Perati Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Late Gopal Reddy, Aged 40 years, (L.R. of Claimant No.11 as per L.R. certificate enclosed).

…...Petitioners/DHrs.

And

1.The Land Acquisition Officer and R.D.O., Peddapalli.

2.The General Manager, S.C.Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani.

…...Respondent/JDrs.

This petition is coming on 31.01.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.Sathaiah, Advocate for the Petitioners/Dhrs and Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent/JDr. No.1, Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for Respondent/JDr. No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following:- :: O R D E R ::

This is a petition filed by the decree holders in L.A.O.P.

No.270/1987.

2.According to the record the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, ‘LAO’) has awarded an amount of Rs.6,000/- per acre for acquisition of the land, Rs.300/- each for big mango tree, Rs.100/- each for small mango trees, Rs.40/- per each Jama tree, Rs.15/- each for Jamun tree,

Rs.80/- for each Tappable sendhi tree and 30 paise to each untappable sendhi and Rs.15/- to each Gulmohar tree and award was passed in award No.18, dt.13.01.1985 and on reference to this court L.A.O.P.

No.270/1987 was registered and this court has enhanced the value of the land to Rs.12,000/- per acre and doubled the value of the trees.

Both the parties have approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of appeal and cross objections and the Hon’ble High Court has enhanced the market value of the land to Rs.14,000/- per acre and enhanced the value of each mango tree to Rs.3,000/-. The judgment debtor has deposited an amount of Rs.42,67,361/- on 26.12.2012 after deducting 3

EP 23/2012 IN LAOP 270/1987

the amount of Rs.4,26,523/- towards income tax by demand draft bearing No.854221 dt.19.12.2012.

3.The decree holders have filed this E.P. on 03.02.2012. According to the decree holders, judgment debtors need to pay an amount of

Rs.42,69,183/- including costs without deduction of the income tax. If the income tax is deducted out of the amount claimed by the decree holders it would be lesser than the amount deposited by the judgment debtor. There is no dispute to the fact that the judgment debtor is under an obligation to deduct the income tax before making payment to the land owners or depositing the amount into the court. However, the decree holders in his E.P. has not deducted the income tax. In that viewof the matter the J.Dr.2 has deposited more amount than what is claimed by the D.Hrs.

4.It is also noticed that the decree holders have made wrong calculation. The decree holders while calculating the interest has calculated the interest on the total amount arrived as per the decree of the Hon’ble Court in A.S. No. 235 of 2001 and he ought to have deducted the amount already paid by the LAO before calculating the interest. Instead of that the decree holder calculated interest on the entire compensation payable and later deducted the amount already paid by the LAO. The decree holder has made wrong calculation of the interest. The decree holders are claiming an amount of Rs.42,69,183/- (calculating interest up to 22-02-2012, through E.P was filed on 14-02- 2012) and the J.Dr.2 has deposited an amount of Rs.42,67,361/- on 19- 12-2012. The differencee of amount is Rs.1,822/-. J.Dr.2 has deposited the amount after deducting the income tax of Rs.4,26,523/- and 4

EP 23/2012 IN LAOP 270/1987

therefore, J.Dr.2 has calculated the total payable compensation as

Rs.42,67,361 + Rs.4,26,523/- = Rs.46,93,884/-. Whereas D.Hrs have claimed Rs.42,69,183, without deduction of income tax. In view of this

J.Dr.2 has deposited more amount though what is claimed by the D.Hrs.

It is also noticed that the D.Hrs have claimed E.P. costs of Rs.2,534/- and they are not entitled to claim the E.P. costs at that rate. The D.Hrs have mentioned the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundan

Vs Union of India (2001) 7SCC 211 in their petition itself and J.Dr.2 has deposited the compensation by calculating interest in accordance with the relies laid down, in the said judgment.

5.The learned counsel for the decree holder relies upon the judgment of the Hob’ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of

India reported in 2006(1) Decisions Today (SC) 973 (Civil Appeal

No.4570/2006) dated 19.10.2008 also. However, the judgment cannot be interpreted to calculate the entire amount deposited by the judgment debtor towards interest, more particularly when the judgment debtor has paid the amount under different heads separately. In the above judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in certain circumstances the awardee decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the early payments, on the general principle of appropriation, first towards the interest, then towards costs and then towards principal, unless of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment debtor, while making the deposit intimating the decree holder of his intention. This court is not able to comprehend as to how the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court would be helpful to the decree holders in this case.

5

EP 23/2012 IN LAOP 270/1987

In several E.Ps filed in the LAOPs, the decree holders have been claiming reopening of the entire transaction citing the judgment in “Gurpreet Singh” stated above. But the said judgment relied upon by the decree holder is not at all useful to them. In this case on hand, the judgment debtor has deposited the amount as per the award by the

L.A.O., and thereafter as per the answer (order made by the reference court from time to time. Payment of compensation under each head separately, which were received by the decree holder under protest towards part satisfaction of their claim (before the reference court) means payment of the principal amount. The principle applied in such cases was elucidated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of “Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India”, stated above, the court observed, “The principle appears to be that if a part of the principal has been paid along with interest due thereon, as on the date of issuance of notice of deposit, interest on that part of the principal sum will cease to run thereafter. In other words, there is no obligation on the judgment debtor to pay interest on that part of the principal which he has already paid or deposited.”

While applying the above principle to the case on hand, and to the cases under Land Acquisition Act, the court has further observed as follows in the same judgment.

“Going by this principle and for the moment keeping out the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, it appears to us that on payment or deposit of the amount awarded by the Collector in terms of Section 11 read with Section 31 of the Act, the claimant cannot thereafter claim any interest on that part of the compensation paid to him or deposited for the payment to him once notice of deposit is given to him. Thereafter, when the reference court enhances the compensation with consequential enhancement in solatium and interest under Section 23(1A) of the Act and further awards interest on the enhanced compensation in terms of Section 28 of the Act, the claimant/decree holder can seek an appropriation of the amounts deposited pursuant to that award decree, only towards the enhanced amount so awarded by the reference court.” 6

EP 23/2012 IN LAOP 270/1987

While answering the question as to whether decree holder can claim interest on the entire amount or enhanced amount (i.e., difference between the amount already deposited and enhanced by the court), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gurpreet Singh” observed as follows:- “Thus, in cases of execution of money decrees or award decrees, or rather, decrees other than mortgage decrees, interest ceases to run on the amount deposited, to the extent of the deposit. It is true that if the amount falls short, the decree holder may be entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards the interest, then towards the costs and then towards the principal amount due under the decree. But the fact remains that to the extent of the deposit, no further interest is payable thereon to the decree holder and there is no question of the decree holder claiming a re-appropriation when it is found that more amounts are due to him and the same is also deposited by the judgment debtor. In other words, the scheme does not contemplate a reopening of the satisfaction to the extent it has occurred by the deposit. No further interest would run on the sum appropriated towards the principal.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated in “Gurpreet Singh” that the decree holder cannot reopen the entire transaction. The court said “that on the wording of Section 34 and Section 28 of the Act read with and understood in the light of the stages of the award of compensation, the question of appropriation would be at different stages and a decree holder would not be entitled to reopen the entire transaction to claim a re-appropriation of the amounts already received by him and appropriated at that particular stage. The reliance on the doctrine of merger does not enable the decree-holder to get over the scheme adopted by the Act.”

In no circumstances, the decree holder can claim future interest on the principal amount already paid. In the above judgment of “Gurpreet Singh” the Hon’ble Apex Court has concluded thus:- “Though, a decree holder may have the right to appropriate the payments made by the judgment-debtor, it could only be as provided in the decree if there is provision in that behalf in the decree or, as contemplated by Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code as explained by us 7

EP 23/2012 IN LAOP 270/1987

above. The Code or the general rules do not contemplate payment of further interest by a judgment debtor on the portion of the principal he has already paid. His obligation is only to pay interest on he balance

principal remaining unpaid as adjudged either by the court of first

instance or in the court of appeal. On the pretext that the amount adjudged by the appellate court is the real amount due, the decree- holder cannot claim interest on that part of the principal already paid to him.”

The above legal possession in “Gurpreet Singh” was further clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. R.S.Avtar Singh and Company 2012 Law Suit (SC) 674 equivalent to

AIR 2013 (SC) 252 equivalent to 2013 (1) ALD (SC) 44.

The ratio in Gurpreet Singh and Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited stated above makes it clear that the decree holder is not entitled for the amount as claimed by them. The calculation made by the court in which it is found that the decree holder is entitled only to Rs.8,28,483/- is made keeping the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in “Gurpreet Singh” and subsequently reiterated in Bharat Heavy

Electricals Limited.

6.In view of the above discussion the calculation arrived at by the decree holder is incorrect and the judgment debtor has deposited the required amount and therefore, the D.Hr cannot claim any more amount than the amount which was already deposited by the J.Dr.2. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.

7.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, and after corrections

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of February,

2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

8

EP 23/2012 IN LAOP 270/1987

Appendix of Evidence ---Nil---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

…..

TSKA080002372018

Presented on : 13-06-2018 Registered on : 19-06-2018 Decided on : 07-02-2019 Duration : 0 years, 7 months, 24 days

IN THE COURT OF

senior civil judge AT PEDDAPALLI ,KARIMNAGAR

Presided Over by Sri K. Pattabhi Rama Rao

H.M.O.P/92/2018

Exhibit No.:

: Putta @ Dhadi Anusha @ Sravanthi Age: 21 Occupation : Address: Kannala

VERSUS : Putta Ranjith Yadav Age: 25 Occupation : Address: Kannala (shalapalli) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Sri R.Suresh Babu and T.Ashok, Advocates. Advocate for : appearing for Putta Ranjith Yadav: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 07-02-2019 )

ORDER

Both petitioners are absent. Orders are pronounced vide separate order. In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 solemnized on 30.03.2016 is hereby dissolved on their mutual consent by granting a decree of divorce under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

Date : 07-02-2019 (Sri K. Pattabhi Rama Rao)

senior civil judge

PEDDAPALLI

,KARIMNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSKA080000352019

Presented on : 31-01-2019 Registered on : 31-01-2019 Decided on : 18-02-2019 Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 18 days

IN THE COURT OF

senior civil judge AT PEDDAPALLI ,KARIMNAGAR

Presided Over by Sri K.Pattabhi Rama Rao

H.M.O.P/12/2019

Exhibit No.:

: Sorupaka Swapna Age: 28 Occupation : Address: Ayyagaruveedi, Ramavaram, Kothagudem. Khammam.

VERSUS : Sorupaka Santhosh Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Chandrababu colony, Godavarikhani.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : PURMA SRINIVAS Advocate for : appearing for Sorupaka Santhosh: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 18-02-2019 )

ORDER

Orders are pronounced vide separate order. In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 solemnized on 14-02-2009 is hereby dissolved on their mutual consent by granting a decree of divorce under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Date : 18-02-2019 (Sri K.Pattabhi Rama Rao)

senior civil judge

PEDDAPALLI

,KARIMNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Sri K.Pattabhi Rama Rao) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

PEDDAPALLI

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSKA080001592018

Presented on : 06-06-2018 Registered on : 18-06-2018 Decided on : 07-02-2019 Duration : 0 years, 8 months, 1 days

IN THE COURT OF

senior civil judge AT PEDDAPALLI ,KARIMNAGAR

Presided Over by Sri K. Pattabhi Rama Rao

H.M.O.P/81/2018

Exhibit No.:

: Danda Vivek Kumar Age: 35 Occupation : Address: Kannala

VERSUS : Danda @ Mandala Manasa Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Gurrampalli ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : KUMARASWAMY MERUGU Advocate for : appearing for Danda @ Mandala Manasa: Advocate appearing for respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 07-02-2019 )

ORDER

Petitioner no.1 is present. PEtitioner no.2 is absent. Orders are pronounced vide separate order. In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 solemnized on 13.05.2013 is hereby dissloved on their mutual consent by granting a decree of divorce under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

Date : 07-02-2019 (Sri K. Pattabhi Rama Rao)

senior civil judge

PEDDAPALLI

,KARIMNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PEDDAPALLI 

Present: Sri K. SURI KRISHNA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI .

Date:18­02­2019

H.M.O.P/47/2018

Between:­ kummarikunta sathish Address: dharmaram … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND Mitta @ kummarikunta mamatha Address: dharmaram … Defendant/Respondent

D O C K E T O R D E R

Date:18­02­2019

Orders are pronounced vide separate Order. In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 solemnized on 31­05­2013 is hereby dissolved on their mutual consent by granting a decree of divorce under Section 13B of HM Act 1955.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE AND

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

­ ­ Nil ­ ­ ­ ­Nil­ ­

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFFOR THE DEFENDANTS

­ ­Nil­­ ­ ­Nil­ ­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI .