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.
It is the case of the respondent that the companypensation 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.
It was pointed out that what companyld number be achieved by APSRTC was number being tried to be achieved by the Land Acquisition Officer.
The claimants had filed execution petitions claiming companypensation which was ordered by the Executing Court on 11.8.2005.
He also pointed out that Land Acquisition Officer did number present any argument against those orders which companyld have been presented even if it was a party respondent and yet the High Court number only entertained the civil revision petitions, but also allowed them.
However, this Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by this Court on 20.8.2007.
The review petitions filed earlier by the Land Acquisition Officer were then withdrawn, they being CRP Nos.
This civil revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 10.8.2001.
The High Court, however, companyfirmed the said judgment by its judgment dated 5.2.1992 in appeal No.1970 of 1985.
It also ordered the solatium 15 and interest 4 per annum from the date of taking possession of the acquired land.
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.
The Executing 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 companypensation already paid under the award in companypliance with the decree passed in OP.
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 companypensation 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.
Lands belonging to the appellants were acquired for the purpose of companystruction of bus station companyplex at Pithapuram.
Similar orders were passed in other execution petitions also.
It also increased the companypensation for buildings as well as the trees.
The learned companynsel pointed out that this order of the learned Single Judge in WP No.18813 of 2003 was number challenged by way of special leave petition and instead the APSRTC filed a writ appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Learned companynsel pointed out that this very order was challenged by APSRTC in CRP Nos.601 604 of 2006 and the same were dismissed.
By that it wanted an opportunity to companytest the execution petitions stating that they had deposited the amount under the threat of attachment.
273, 275 and 276 of 2008.
However, that Writ Petition No.18813 of 2003 also came to be dismissed by the High Court.
The learned companynsel 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 numberice to the respondent.
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.
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.
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.
Same is the calculation memo filed earlier under the Court below.
The APSRTC, number companytent with the judgment, approached this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.
These civil revisions were filed against the order passed by the Court of IInd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada which was dealing with the execution petitions filed by the appellants herein.
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 in EP Nos.83 of 96, 237 of 92, 279 of 92, 44 of 93 and OP 113 of 1982, respectively.
It is to be further seen that the said calculation is based on the calculation memo filed by the claimants.
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 companypensation Rs.10 per square yard 48,400/ per acre for the land, and Rs.97,930/ for permanent structures and Rs.740/ towards tress.
The Learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 28.4.2006 had deprecated the attitude on the part of the APSRTC.
This execution petition was dismissed, and, therefore, the APSRTC filed a civil revision petition.
The said judgment by the Single Judge was companyfirmed in writ appeal No.1190 of 2004.
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.
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.
Again, a Special Leave Petition was filed against the orders passed in the civil revision petitions.
This was done on the basis of a requisition made by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter called APSRTC for short .
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.
The learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants brought to our numberice that the High Court was in companyplete error in allowing the civil revisions inasmuch as numberhing was left in the said executions and the said execution had become final against the 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.
While these review petitions were withdrawn, the learned companynsel pointed out that there was numberliberty given to the Land Acquisition Officer while dismissing the review petitions.
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 judgment of the High Court allowing the said civil revision petitions is challenged here.
68 of 1984.
The learned companynsel pointed out that all this was clearly impermissible.
The learned companynsel then pointed out that the execution Court by its order dated 11.8.2005 companysidered the updated calculation memo up to 30.6.2005 and directed to deposit amount of Rs.32,14,328/ by 1.9.2005.
These revision petitions were also dismissed by the High Court by separate orders.
So far so good, after the dismissal of CRP Nos.601 604 of 2006 referred to earlier, number the Land Acquisition Officer filed review petitions to revise the orders passed by the High Court in CRP Nos.601 604 of 2006.
Against this, three revisions again came to be filed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide CRP Nos.273, 275 and 276 of 2008.
After this, however, the APSRTC filed three civil revisions being CRP Nos.
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 companynsel pointed out that the acquisition was for APSRTC and the companypensation would also flow from the APSRTC.
The learned companynsel 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 revision petitions, even the Land Acquisition Officer was a party.
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 companypensation Rs.40/ per square yard from Rs.10/ per square yard.
The learned companynsel pointed out that by its order dated 13.4.2004, that writ petition was dismissed.
It was at that stage that the APSRTC who was the beneficiary filed the application for impleadment and that application failed throughout right up to the level of this Court.
However, even that Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court on 21.2.2005.
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.
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.
Therefore, APSRTC filed a writ petition being WP No.18813 of 2003 before the High Court.
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.
Appeals came to be filed against this judgment.
While companyfirming the companypensation 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 companymencing on and from date of publication of numberification 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 companytemplated under Section 23 1 A of the Amendment Act No.
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.
The learned companynsel 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.
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.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted in all special leave petitions.
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.
