“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.    2565-2571      OF 2011 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 30531-30537 OF 2009)

Koka Suryanarayana Rao & Ors. … Appellants

Versus

Land Acquisition Offr. & Rev. Div. Offcr, A.P.       … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted in all special leave petitions.

2. By these appeals the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge  

of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the civil revision petitions filed  

by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Division Officer,  Kakinada  

are in challenge.  By the instant judgment, the said civil revision petitions  

were allowed and some directions were given to the Executing Court which  

was executing the decrees earned by the appellants herein.   These civil  

revisions  were  filed  against  the  order  passed  by  the  Court  of  IInd  

Additional  Senior  Civil  Judge,  Kakinada  which  was  dealing  with  the  

1

execution  petitions  filed  by  the  appellants  herein.   In  those  execution  

petitions,  the  calculations  made by the  decree  holder-appellants  herein  

regarding the decretal  amount were accepted and the Land Acquisition  

Officer-judgment debtor was directed to deposit the amounts in terms of  

the calculations made by the decree holders.

3. Lands belonging to the appellants were acquired for the purpose of  

construction of bus station complex at Pithapuram.  This was done on the  

basis  of  a  requisition  made  by  Andhra  Pradesh  State  Road  Transport  

Corporation  (hereinafter  called  ‘APSRTC’  for  short).   Possession  was  

already taken of the land with building and trees on 29.1.1978 itself and  

award came to be passed on 1.6.1981 awarding compensation @ Rs.10  

per  square  yard  (48,400/-  per  acre)  for  the  land,  and  Rs.97,930/-  for  

permanent structures and Rs.740/- towards tress.  A reference was made  

under Section 18 of the Act by the appellants herein and the reference  

Court  by  its  order  and  decree  dated  25.4.1984  enhanced  the  

compensation @ Rs.40/- per square yard from Rs.10/- per square yard.  It  

also increased the compensation for buildings as well as the trees.  It also  

ordered the solatium @ 15% and interest @ 4 % per annum from the date  

of  taking  possession  of  the  acquired  land.   Appeals  came  to  be  filed  

against  this  judgment.   The  High  Court,  however,  confirmed  the  said  

judgment  by  its  judgment  dated  5.2.1992  in  appeal  No.1970  of  1985.  

2

While  confirming  the  compensation  awarded  and  the  rate  fixed  by  the  

reference Court, the High Court further held that in addition to the market  

value of the land, the claimants shall be entitled to the additional amount  

calculated  @  12  %  per  annum  on  such  market  value  for  the  period  

commencing on and from date of publication of notification under Section  

4(1) of the Act to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking  

possession  of  the  land,  whichever  was  earlier  as  contemplated  under  

Section 23(1)A of the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1984.  It was also ordered  

that  the  claimants–appellants-decree  holders  would  also  be  entitled  to  

solatium @ 30 % and interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of taking  

possession till the date of payment.   

4. The Land Acquisition Officer deposited the amount as awarded by  

the reference Court awarding 12 % additional market value, solatium and  

interest by the High Court.   

5. The claimants had filed execution petitions claiming compensation  

which was ordered by the Executing Court on 11.8.2005.  The calculation  

made by the Court in the execution petitions suggested that apart from the  

market value, 30 % solatium and 12 % additional market value were also  

added for arriving at the proper compensation and on that amount interest  

@ 9 % per annum was also claimed from 29.1.1978 for a period of a year  

i.e. up to 28.1.1979 and thereafter @ 15 % per annum.  The Executing  

3

Court also deducted the amount paid on 1.6.1981 and the interest was  

calculated  on  the  balance  amount  including  interest  on  the  additional  

market value and accrued interest by deducting the compensation already  

paid under the award in compliance with the decree passed in OP.  It is the  

case of the respondent that the compensation amount was deposited on  

17.9.1984 and in one of the execution petitions and credited on 5.10.1984  

to the full satisfaction of decree passed in OP No.113/1982 dated 25.4.84.  

6. While  these  execution  petitions  were  pending,  APSRTC  filed  

execution application No.424 of 1996 in execution petition No.279 of 1995  

and OP No.113 of 1982 for impleading itself as the second respondent-

judgment debtor.  By that it wanted an opportunity to contest the execution  

petitions stating that they had deposited the amount under the threat of  

attachment.   This  execution petition  was  dismissed,  and,  therefore,  the  

APSRTC filed a civil revision petition.  This civil revision petition was also  

dismissed by  the  High Court  by  its  order  dated  10.8.2001.   Therefore,  

APSRTC filed a writ petition being WP No.18813 of 2003 before the High  

Court.   However,  that  Writ  Petition No.18813 of  2003 also came to be  

dismissed by the High Court.  The said judgment by the Single Judge was  

confirmed in writ appeal No.1190 of 2004.  The APSRTC, not content with  

the judgment, approached this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.  

4

However, even that Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court on  

21.2.2005.

7. After  this,  however,  the  APSRTC filed  three  civil  revisions  being  

CRP Nos. 601, 603 and 604 of 2006 with leave to file revisions against the  

order  of  the Executing Court  dated 11.8.2005 passed in EP No.237 of  

1992, 44 of 1993, 279 of 1992 and 83 of 1996.  These revision petitions  

were  also  dismissed  by  the  High  Court  by  separate  orders.   Again,  a  

Special  Leave  Petition  was  filed  against  the  orders  passed in  the  civil  

revision  petitions.   However,  this  Special  Leave  Petition  was  also  

dismissed by this Court on 20.8.2007.

8. So far  so good, after  the dismissal  of  CRP Nos.601-604 of 2006  

referred to earlier, now the Land Acquisition Officer filed review petitions to  

revise the orders passed by the High Court in CRP Nos.601-604 of 2006.  

While these review petitions were pending, the Executing Court allowed  

the execution petitions and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit  

the  decretal  amount  by  order  dated  26.11.2007.   Against  this,  three  

revisions again came to be filed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide CRP  

Nos.273, 275 and 276 of 2008.  The review petitions filed earlier by the  

Land Acquisition Officer were then withdrawn, they being CRP Nos. 273,  

275 and 276 of 2008.  The Land Acquisition Officer then filed four revision  

petitions they being CRP Nos.1514, 1580, 1697 and 1698 of 2008 against  

5

the order of the Executing Court dated 11.8.2005 in EP Nos.83 of 96, 237  

of 92, 279 of 92, 44 of 93 and OP 113 of 1982, respectively.  The judgment  

of  the High Court  allowing the said civil  revision petitions is challenged  

here.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants brought  

to our notice that the High Court was in complete error in allowing the civil  

revisions inasmuch as nothing was left in the said executions and the said  

execution had become final against the APSRTC.  It was pointed out that  

what  could  not  be  achieved  by  APSRTC  was  now  being  tried  to  be  

achieved by the Land Acquisition Officer.  The learned counsel pointed out  

that  the acquisition was for APSRTC and the compensation would also  

flow from the APSRTC.  It was pointed out that APSRTC having failed in  

achieving results in spite of the three earlier rounds of litigation, now the  

mantle has been taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer.  The learned  

counsel took us through the list of dates and pointed out that after the final  

determination  of  principles  of  compensation,  claimants  filed  execution  

petitions  along  with  the  calculation  memos  claiming  the  total  decretal  

amount of Rs.15,87,833.61/-.  This amount was directed to be deposited  

as per that calculation memo on or before 29.4.1996 by way of an order  

dated  2.4.1996.  It  was  at  that  stage  that  the  APSRTC  who  was  the  

beneficiary filed the application for impleadment and that application failed  

6

throughout right up to the level of this Court.  It was pointed out that when  

the civil revision petitions of impleadment were filed, a writ petition came to  

be filed being Writ  Petition No.18813 of  2003 wherein  the order of  the  

Executing Court was challenged.  The learned counsel pointed out that by  

its order dated 13.4.2004, that writ petition was dismissed.  However, the  

learned Single Judge had given liberty to file an appeal against the order in  

CRP  No.3894  of  2007  before  this  Court,  if  so  advised.   The  learned  

counsel  pointed out  that  this  order  of  the learned Single  Judge in  WP  

No.18813 of 2003 was not challenged by way of special leave petition and  

instead  the  APSRTC  filed  a  writ  appeal  against  the  judgment  of  the  

learned Single Judge.  The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal and  

it is against that order regarding impleadment that APSRTC filed Special  

Leave Petition which was also dismissed.

10. The learned counsel then pointed out that the execution Court by its  

order  dated 11.8.2005  considered  the  updated  calculation  memo up to  

30.6.2005 and directed to deposit amount of Rs.32,14,328/- by 1.9.2005.  

Similar orders were passed in other execution petitions also.  Against this  

order, the APSRTC again filed four civil revision petitions, they being CRP  

Nos.601-604 of 2006 which were dismissed by the Learned Single Judge.  

The  Learned  Single  Judge  in  his  judgment  dated  28.4.2006  had  

deprecated the attitude on the part of the APSRTC.   

7

11. It was then pointed out that this order of 28.4.2006 was sought to be  

reviewed by the Land Acquisition Officer by filing review petitions.  The  

learned counsel pointed out that against the dismissal of the civil revision  

petitions  filed  by  APSRTC,  the  APSRTC  again  approached  this  Court  

which Special Leave petition was also dismissed, though after notice to the  

respondent.  However, the review petitions filed by the LAO challenging  

the calculations were  also dismissed as withdrawn by the orders dated  

29.8.2008 passed by the High Court.  While these review petitions were  

withdrawn, the learned counsel pointed out that there was no liberty given  

to the Land Acquisition Officer while dismissing the review petitions.   

12. After withdrawal of the review petitions the Land Acquisition Officer  

again filed fresh Civil Revision Petition Nos.1514, 1580, 1697 and 1698 of  

2008 before the High Court against the order of the Executing Court which  

had passed the orders on 11.8.2005 in four execution petitions.  Learned  

counsel  pointed out that this very order was challenged by APSRTC in  

CRP Nos.601-604 of 2006 and the same were dismissed.  He pointed out  

that in those civil revision petitions, even the Land Acquisition Officer was  

a party.  He also pointed out that Land Acquisition Officer did not present  

any argument against those orders which could have been presented even  

if it was a party respondent and yet the High Court not only entertained the  

civil revision petitions, but also allowed them.  The learned counsel pointed  

8

out that all  this was clearly impermissible.  The learned counsel was at  

pains to point out and rely upon the judgment of the High Court dealing  

with the civil revision petition No.601-604 of 2006 filed by APSRTC.  He  

pointed out that in those civil revisions, the APSRTC had challenged the  

calculations approved by the Executing Court by its order dated 11.8.2005.  

The learned counsel relied on the following paragraph in the judgment:

“Now,  the  APSRTC  files  the  present  civil  revision  petition questioning the calculation made by the office of the  Court below.  It is to be further seen that the said calculation is  based on the calculation memo filed by the claimants.  Same  is the calculation memo filed earlier under the Court below.  The present calculation memo is on the same lines, of course,  by updating.  Absolutely, there is no deviation from the earlier  calculation  memo  and  furthermore  the  present  calculation  arrived at by the office of the Court below is matching with the  calculation memo filed by the claimants.”

It  is  pointed  out  that  in  this  very  judgment,  it  was  observed  in  

paragraph 10 as under:

“At  this  stage,  the  APSRTC  files  the  present  civil  revision petition.  No objections were taken by any party of the  execution petition EP No.237 of 1992 in EP No.113 of 1982  on the  file  of  IInd  Additional  Subordinate  Judge,  Kakinada,  including  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer,  who  is  answerable  party, or the party to the execution petition, the present Civil  Revision Petition is filed, of course, by obtaining leave of this  Court.”                                                                         (emphasis supplied)  

13. From this, the learned counsel said and, in our opinion, rightly that  

there was no question of  finding fault  with  the calculation memo which  

were approved by the High Court in its aforementioned judgment.   It  is  

9

further pointed out that the Special Leave Petition against this judgment  

was already dismissed by this Court on 20.8.2007.  It was also argued that  

in view of this judgment, nothing was left to be considered in respect of the  

calculation memo.  In view of all this, the learned counsel urged that there  

was no question of finding fault with the calculation memos ordered upon  

by the Executing Court.   

14. As  against  this,  Shri  R.  Venkataramani,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing on behalf of the respondent-State tried to justify the order that  

the calculation of interest in the aforementioned calculation memo was not  

correct.  It was tried to be pointed out by the learned senior counsel by  

filing  the  calculation  sheet,  that  calculation  of  the  claimants-appellants  

herein  was  excessive  and  in  that  the  interest  was  calculated  on  the  

interest.   The learned counsel  tried  to  point  out  that  in  calculating  the  

interest as per the calculation memo finalized by the Executing Court, the  

amounts of compensation which were already deposited were not taken  

into consideration and, therefore, the interest was swollen unnaturally.  In  

short, the learned counsel tried to urge that the interest on interest was  

being claimed by the claimants, which was not correct.

15. It must be pointed out, at this juncture, that in the judgment of the  

High Court disposing of the Civil Revision Petition Nos. 601-604 of 2006  

which  were  filed  by  the  APSRTC,  the  question  of  correctness  of  the  

10

calculations was specifically raised almost on the similar lines.  However,  

the High Court refuted that contention on the part of the APSRTC.  It must  

be  noted that,  to  that  petition,  the  Land Acquisition  Officer  was  also a  

party.  But as has been held by the High Court, no objections were raised  

by  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  at  all.   It  is  only  thereafter  that  the  

respondent Land Acquisition Officer seems to have woken up by filing the  

review  applications.   It  has  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  judgment  of  

28.4.2006  passed  by  the  Learned  Single  Judge  was  challenged  by  

APSRTC up to the level of this Court wherein this Court confirmed that  

judgment by dismissing the Special Leave Petition.  It has to be pointed  

out that even in those special leave petitions, the land Acquisition Officer  

was  a  party.   At  any  rate,  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  even  being  a  

respondent in CRP Nos.601 to 604 of 2006 could have at least supported  

APSRTC or independently filed a Special Leave Petition.  But that was not  

done.  Instead, the Land Acquisition Officer chose to file review petitions  

and further chose to withdraw them.  There was no liberty sought while  

withdrawing the review petitions and, therefore, civil revisions came to be  

filed before the High Court against the very same order of the Executing  

Court which was confirmed right up to this Court.  All this obviously was  

not permissible.  In that, the Land Acquisition Officer was only trying to  

fight a battle of APSRTC which APSRTC had already lost.  It goes without  

saying that by the impugned order of the High Court, the beneficiary party  

11

would  be  the  APSRTC  because  it  was  for  its  cause  that  the  land  

acquisition  was  done  and  even  the  compensation  would  come  from  

APSRTC.  The things are, thus, clear that once the APSRTC had chosen  

to challenge the calculation memos and had failed in that exercise right up  

to this Court, the Land Acquisition Officer is now trying to challenge the  

very same orders.  We do not think that this is any more permissible.  We  

have already pointed out that the respondent did not raise even its little  

finger  against  the  calculation  memos  presented  by  the  decree-holder-

appellants herein.  All through, the respondent herein was a party to all the  

proceedings including the Civil  Revision Petitions filed by the APSRTC,  

firstly, for its impleadment and, secondly, against the order passed by the  

Executing Court accepting the calculation memos.  Unfortunately, it is only  

when all the controversies were closed that the Land Acquisition Officer  

has chosen to file these four Civil Revision Petitions in 2008.  We do not  

approve of this course as the Land Acquisition Officer could not have, at  

this  juncture,  filed  the  Civil  Revision  Petitions  and  even  if  those  Civil  

Revisions  were  filed  and  could  be  entertained,  in  our  opinion,  all  the  

questions regarding the correctness of  the calculation memos had also  

been finally closed, firstly, by the judgment in CRP Nos.601 to 604 of 2006  

and lastly by the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed challenging  

the calculation memos.   

12

16. We  have  carefully  seen  the  pleadings  of  the  parties  at  various  

stages where the APSRTC had clearly challenged the calculation memos.  

Therefore,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  question  of  correctness  of  the  

calculation memos was not considered by the High Court or this Court.  In  

our  opinion,  therefore,  the  contention  raised  by  Shri  R.  Venkataramani  

regarding the calculation memos not being correct cannot be entertained  

now.

17. The appeals, therefore, deserve to be allowed and are allowed.  The  

order of  the High Court is set aside and that  of  the Executing Court is  

restored.  However, under the circumstances, there will be no orders as to  

costs.

………………………J.

[V.S.SIRPURKAR]

……………………….J.

[T.S.THAKUR]

New Delhi

March 17, 2011

13

14