Remanded

Maremalla Satyanarayana, v. Special Tahsildar (Lao) PWD Scheme

Telangana HC21 Oct 2010CRP/5163/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against an order closing E.P. No. 45 of 2000 in a land acquisition compensation case. Court held lower court failed to follow High Court's prior remittals regarding adjustment of deposited sums towards interest. Impugned order set aside and matter remitted for fresh calculation per legal position.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to lower Court for fresh disposal following July 2003 order.

Maremalla Satyanarayana, Vs Special Tahsildar (Lao) PWD… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 5163 of 2007

¶2

Order:

¶3

This revision is directed against the orders dated 01.12.2005 passed in E.P. No. 45 of 2000 in O.P. No.202 of 1970 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

¶4

An extent of Ac.5-14 cents belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the Government and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.2,200/- per acre. On the application of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.4500/- per acre. Having not satisfied with the same, the petitioner has carried the matter in appeal in A.S. No.1826 of 1980. However, the said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 09.09.1987. Then the petitioner filed L.P.A. No.274 of 1987 and a Division Bench of this Court enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.4500/- to Rs.4700/- per acre. Thus, finally the compensation was determined at Rs.4700/- per acre. Then the Land Acquisition Officer deposited a sum of Rs.20,423/- in the Court below on 13.04.1972 and a further sum of Rs.256.67 ps. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P. No.45 of 2000 in O.P. No.202 of 1970 claiming Rs.1,50,105-25 ps.. The lower Court, after giving credit to the amounts already deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer, allowed E.P for a sum of Rs.1,31,458-78 ps. By an order dated 06.06.2002. Not satisfied with the same, the petitioner again approached this Court and filed C.R.P. No.1659 of 2003, and this Court, having considered the entire case law and also the judgment of the apex Court, allowed the said CRP, by order dated 09.01.2004, and

¶5

remitted the matter to the lower Court for fresh consideration with the following observations:

¶6

“Therefore, what is required to be considered is as to whether while depositing the amount whether specific amounts were deposited in respect of various items as per the award or decree. When the deposit is made towards the specified amount, the claimant/owner is not entitled to deduction from compensation towards interest and costs, additional amount under Section 23(1)(a) with interest and then to claim total balance with further interest. Therefore, the Court is required to peruse the terms of the decree or award with reference to various items specified therein and whether the deposit is made towards the payment of particular item in the award/decree. Thereafter compute the amounts on the basis of the decree vis-à-vis deposits made. This aspect was not concentrated by the lower Court. This Court could have appropriately passed orders fixing the compensation, but in the absence of specific material with regard to the terms of the award/decree and details of the amounts deposited, it is not possible for this Court to pass any specific orders. Under these circumstances, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the lower Court afresh. Accordingly, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court.”

¶7

Thus, the matter was again remitted back to the lower Court with the above said observations. The lower Court, however, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Urban Trust v. Gokul Narayan^[1] , came to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot claim that the amount already deposited should be adjusted towards interest only and the amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer has to be adjusted towards the principal amount, and made a fresh

¶8

calculation and came to the conclusion that the JDr has already deposited excess amount of Rs.1575/- and closed the EP by the impugned orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶9

Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the lower Court has not taken into consideration the observations made by this Court in C.R.P. No.1659 of 2003 and even the calculation made by this Court was not correctly followed and interest at 15% was calculated from 15.06.1961, whereas this Court has calculated the interest at 15% from 15.06.1960 and the directions given by this Court were not followed by the lower Court.

¶10

The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration submits that as on the date of passing of the impugned order, the judgment of the apex Court in Urban Trust v. Gokul Narayan (1 supra) had to be followed and, accordingly, the lower Court has followed the said judgment and, therefore, the order of the lower Court is perfectly justified. However, he has not disputed that the latest view of the apex Court and the settled legal position is that while depositing the amount, if there is no specific averment as to under what head that amount is deposited i.e., whether towards interest or towards principal, then the amount deposited has to be adjusted towards interest.

¶11

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside and whether the matter has to be remitted back to the lower Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶12

The courts below have to necessarily follow the judgments of the concerned High Court. When the matter has been remitted, the Court to which the matter has been remitted must follow the directions given by the High Court. A reading of the lower Court order gives an

¶13

impression that it has not considered the judgment of this Court passed in C.R.P. No.1659 of 2003. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even there is no reference of the order of this Court in the order of the lower Court. The lower Court may be justified in relying on the judgment of the apex Court as the law prevailing as on that day. However, since the petitioner has filed this revision petition, the proceedings are deemed to be continuing. When the proceedings have been continuing the Courts have to take into consideration the latest legal position. Apparently there appears to be some mistake in calculating the amounts i.e., whether 15% interest has to be calculated from 15.06.1960 to 13.04.1972 or from 15.06.1961 to 13.04.1972.

¶14

In the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court for fresh disposal. The lower Court is directed to follow the order of this Court in C.R.P. No.1659 of 2003, dated 09.01.2004, and also the latest legal position and dispose of the matter in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties, if so advised, may file fresh calculation memos and assist the Court below in coming to a just conclusion.

¶15

Accordingly, the C.R.P. is allowed. However, in the circumstances, no costs.

¶16

___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

Date: 21.10.2010 Nsr

¶18

[1] 1996(4) Supreme Court Cases 178

Maremalla Satyanarayana, v. Special Tahsildar (Lao) PWD Scheme

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maremalla Satyanarayana, v. Special Tahsildar (Lao) PWD Scheme

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Economic Transport Organization Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Parupally Suresh Vs Vajinepalli Basavaiah

G.Anjaneyulu Vs K.Veera Narayana and Anther

Smt.Chenchili Ramanamma , Patta Ramanamma, Vs Smt. Chenchili Krishnamma

D. Manohar Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kakuturu Ramanamma Vs Arigundram Saralamma