KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO AND ORS.versusLAND "ACQUISITION OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., A.P

                    [2011] 5 S.C.R. 639


        KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO AND ORS.                         A
                              V.'
LAND "ACQUISITION OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., A.P.
        (Civil Appeal Nos.2565-2571 of 2011)
                      MARCH 17, 2011
                                                                 8
       [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

      Land Acquisition - Land ·belonging to appellants acquired
on basis of requisition made by Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation (APSRTC) - Compensation awarded C
- Claimants-appellants filed execution petitions - APSRTC
filed application in the execution petitions for impleading itself
as the second respondent - Application dismissed, which
order was upheld upto the level of Supreme Court - In the
execution petitions, calculations made by decree holders- D
appellants regarding the decretal amount was accepted by the
Executing Court and the Land Acquisition Officer was directed
to deposit the amounts in terms of the calculations made by
the decree holders - APSRTC filed civil revisions against the
order of Executing Court - Revision petitions dismissed by E
High Court, which order was upheld by the Supreme Court -
Revision petitions filed by Land Acquisition Officer against the
 very same order of the Executing Court - Allowed by High
 Court - Justification of - Held: Not justified - The Land
 Acquisition Officer was trying to'fight a battle of APSRTC which F
 APSRTC had already lost - All through, the respondent-Land
 Acquisition Officer 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 ..:. It is G
 only when all the controversies were closed that the Land
 Acquisition Officer chose to file the Civil Revision Petitions -
 This course cannot be approved as the Land Acquisition
 Officer could not have, at this juncture, filed the Civil Revision

                              639                                H
    640      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A   Petitions and even if those Civil Revisions were filed and could
    be entertained, all the questions regarding the correctness of
    the calculation memos had also been finally closed, firstly,
    by the judgment in civil revision petitions filed by the APSRTC
    and lastly by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed
s   challenging the calculation memos - Order of the High Court
    set aside and that of the Executing Court restored. .           ·

       Based on a requisition made by the Andhra Pradesh
  State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the lands
  belonging to the appellants were acquired for the
C purpose of construction of a bus station. Possession
  was taken and compensation award was passed. The
  appellants made reference uls. 18 of the Land Acquisition
  Act. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation.
  In appeal, the High Court confirmed the said judgment.
D The claimants-appellants filed execution petitions. While
  the execution petitions were pending, APSRTC filed
  application in the execution petitions for impleading itself
  as: the second respondent. The application was
  dismissed, which order was upheld right up to the level
E of the Supreme Court.

        In the execution petitions, the calculations made by
    the decree holder-appellants regarding the decretal
    amount were accepted by the Executing Court and the
F   Land Acquisition Officer-judgment debtor was directed to
    depositthe amounts in terms of the calculations made by
    the decree holders.
      APS.RTC filed civil revisions against the order of the
  Executing Co1,1rt. The revision petitions were dismissed
G by the ·High c;ourt, which order was uphel.d by the
  Supreme Coulit:.
        Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer filed
    revision petitions against the very same order of the
H
  KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO v. LAND ACQUISITION           641
         OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., A.P.

Executing Court which were allowed by the High Court.         A

     In the instant appeal, the appellants ·contended that
the High Court was in complete error'.in allowing the civil
revisions filed by the Land Acquisition· Officer inasmuch
as nothing was left in the said executions had become         8
final against the APSRTC. It was contended that what
could not be achieved by APSRTC was now being tried
to be achieved by the Land Acquisition Officer.

    Allowing the appeals, the Court .
                                                              c
    HELD:1.1. In the judgment of the High. Court
disposing of the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the
APSRTC, the question of correctness of the calculation
memos filed by the appellants-claimants was specifically
raised. However, the High Court refuted that contention . D
on the part of the APSRTC. 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 E
woken up by filing the review applications. The judgment
passed by the High Court was challenged by APSRTC up
to the level of this Court wherein this Court confirmed
that judgment by dismissing the Special Leave Petition.
Even in those special leave petitions, the land Acquisition F
Officer was a party. At any rate, the Land Acquisition
Officer even being a respondent. in the Civil revision
petitions filed by APSRTC 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 G
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
                                                            H
    642     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A   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. By the impugned order of the High
    Court, the beneficiary party would be the APSRTC
B   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
c   Land Acquisition Officer is now trying to challenge the
    very same orders. This is not any more permissible. [Para
    15] [650-D-H; 651-A-C]

       1.2. The respondent-Land Acquisition Officer did not
  raise even its little finger against the calculation memos
D presented by the decree-holder-appellants. All through,
  the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer 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
E Court accepting the calculation memos. It is only when
  all the controversies were closed that the Land
  Acquisition Officer chose to file the Civil Revision
  Petitions. This course cannot be approved as the Land
  Acquisition Officer could not have, at this juncture, filed
F the Civil Revision Petitions and even if those Civil
  Revisions were filed and could be entertained, all the
  questions regarding the correctness of the calculation
  memos had also been finally closed, firstly, by the
  judgment in civil revision petitions filed by the APSRTC
G and lastly by the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition
  filed challenging the calculation memos. [Para 15] [651-
  D-F]

        2. The APSRTC had clearly challenged the
    calculation memos at various stages. Therefore, it cannot
H
  KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO v. LAND ACQUISITION             6.43
         OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., AP.

be said. that the question of correctness of the calculation A
memos was not considered by the High Court or this
Court. The contention raised by the respondent-Land
Acquisition Officer regarding the calculation memos
cannot be entertained now. The order of the High Coµrt
is set aside and that of the Executing Court is restored. B
[Paras 16, 17) [651-G-!-i; 652-A·B]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
2565-2571 of 2011.                                 ·

    From the Judgment & Order dated 5.6.2009 of the High C
Court of A.P. at Hyderabad in CRP Nos. 273, 275, 276, 1514,
1580, 1697 and 1698 of 2008.

    Guntur Prabhakr for the Appellants.
                                                                 D
    R Venkataramani, G.N. Reddy, V. Pattabhiram and Aljo
K. Joseph for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted in all special leave   E
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 F
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 llnd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada which was G
dealing with the execution petitions filed by the appellants
herein. In those execution petitions, the calculations made by
the decr'ee holder-appellants herein regarding the decretal
amount were accepted and the Land Acquisition Officer-
                                                                 H
    644       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A, 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.
8   This  was done on the basis of a requisition/ made by Andhra
    Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation/.(hereinafter called
    'APSRTC' for short). Possession was alreaay taken of the land
    with building and trees on 29.1.1978 itself/and award came to
    be passed on 1,6.1981 awarding compe~sation@ Rs.10 per
C square yard (48,400/- per acre) for the Jfund, and Rs.97,930/-
    for permanent structures and Rs. 7101- 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/- p,er square yard. It also
D . increased the compensation for buildings as well as the trees.
    It also ordered the solatium @ 15% ~nd 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
E dated 5.2.1992 in appeal No.1970 of 1985. 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
F 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
G 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
H   awarded by the reference Court awarding 12 % additional
    KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO v. LAND ACQUISITION 645
  OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., AP. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
 market value, solatium and interest by the High Court.            A

        5. The claimants had filed execution petitions claiming
  compensation which was ordered by the Executing Court on
  11.8.2005. The calc.ulation made by the Court in the execution
  petitions suggested that apart from the market value, 30 %
                                                                   8
  solatiuni 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 Court also deducted the amount C
  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 D
  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 E
 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. F
 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 G
 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. However, even that Special Leave
                                                                   H
    646     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [201.1], $ ~.C.R.

A   Petition was dismissed by this Court on 21.2.2005. ·      <


          7. After this, however, the APSRTC filed three civil rev-
    isions being CRP Nos. 601, 603 and 604 of 2006 with leave
    to file revisions against the order of the Executing Court dated
B   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
C   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
D   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.
E   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 the order of the Executing Court dated 11.8.2005
F   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
G   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
H   counsel pointed out that the acquisition was for APSRTC and
  KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO v. LAND ACQUISITION         64 7
OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., A.P. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
                       ,   {·;· ,   ;._ . I f   .   .
the compensation would 'also flow from the APSRTC. It was             A
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,          B
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          c
the beneficiary filed the application for impleadment and that
application failed 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               D
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         E
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           F
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 G
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 H
    648      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A   28.4.2006 had deprecated the attitude on the part of the
    APSRTC ..

         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
8
    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
C   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.

o         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
E 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
F 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 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
G civil revision petition No.601-604 of 2006filed 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:
H
  KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO v. LAND ACQUISITION . 649
OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., AP. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
            "Now, the APSRTC files the present civil revision        A
     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          s
     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."                                        c
     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        D
     of the execution petition EP No. 237 of 1992 in EP
     No. 113 of 1982 ofl the file of /Ind 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      E
     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 F
 calculation memo which were approved by the High Court in
 its aforementionea judgment. It is further pointed out that the
,Spefoial Leave Petition against this judgment was already
 dismissed by this Court on 20.8.2007. lt was also argued that
 in view of this judgment, nothing was left to be considered in G
 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      H
    650      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A   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
B   herein was excessive and in that the interest was calculated
    on the interest. The learned counsel tried to point out that in
                               1
    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,
c   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
D Petition Nos. 601-604 of 2006 which were filed, by the APSRTC,
  the question of correctness of the 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H liberty sought while withdrawing the review petitions and,
  KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO v. LAND ACQUISITION         65 ~
OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., AP. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
therefore, civil revisions came to be filed before the High Court A
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 B
Court, the beneficiary party 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 anq had failed in that exercise right up to      c
this Court, the Land Acquisition Officer is now trying to
challenge· the very same orders. We do not think that this is any
mqre 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 D
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 E
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 F
 memos had also beer. 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.

     16. We have carefully seen the pleadings of the parties at     G
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,
                                                                    H
    652        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A 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 arid that of
8
    the Executing Court is restored. However, under the
    circumstances, there will be no orders as to costs.

    8.8.8 ..                                    Appeals allowed.