Allowed

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Dodla Ramachandra Reddy

Telangana HC5 Aug 2010CRP/5732/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court concluded that the beneficiary can be added as a party to execution proceedings because public money is involved and the beneficiary must ultimately pay compensation. The court reversed the trial court's order dismissing the application to implead the beneficiary as a necessary party.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition allowed; E.A. No.448 of 2005 allowed to set aside the impugned order.

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5732 of 2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad .. Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

Dodla Ramachandra Reddy and another .. Respondents

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

The civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.A. No.448 of 2005 in E.P. No.53 of 1999 in L.A.O.P. No.43 of 1980 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore, dated 28-04-2006, by which the petition filed by the beneficiary of the land acquisition to be impleaded as a party to the execution proceedings, was dismissed holding that the presence of the beneficiary is not required in the execution proceedings, when it was not a party to the reference. The executing Court also opined that if the beneficiary is now permitted to file a calculation memo at the stage of execution, it will lead to abuse of process of the Court.

¶10

The order refusing to bring the beneficiary on record as a party is challenged herein contending that the amount has to be ultimately paid by the beneficiary, who is a person interested and is a proper and necessary party to the execution, as the amounts claimed in the execution petition are opposed to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in The Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur v. Gokul Narayan a^[1] and as what is involved is public money, for which the proposed party is only a custodian.

¶11

Sri G. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel representing Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned standing counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri R. Sridhar, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State are heard.

¶12

The learned counsel brought to notice the order in C.R.P. No.5681 of 2006, dated 22-07-2010 on the file of this Court involving an identical order, in which the brother of the present 1^st respondent was the person, whose land was acquired. The learned Judge noted that the revision petitioner is admittedly the beneficiary and this Court as well as the Apex Court held that the beneficiary can be added as a party, as it is he who has to ultimately pay the amounts towards compensation for the land acquired. The learned Judge also noted the claim of the beneficiary that there was wrong calculation of the amount due under the award. Consequently, a similar order refusing to implead the beneficiary as a party in the execution, was reversed and the revision petition was allowed. The said order, dated 2207-2010 is squarely applicable on facts and principle to the present case and for similar reasons, which need not be replicated, the present impugned order also has to be accordingly reversed.

¶13

Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed without costs and E.A. No.448 of 2005 in E.P. No.53 of 1999 in L.A.O.P. No.43 of 1980 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore is allowed setting aside the impugned order.

¶14

_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶15

Date: 05-08-2010 Svv

¶16

[1] (1996) 4 SCC 178

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Dodla Ramachandra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Dodla Ramachandra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Late Malayala Venugopala Swamy (deceased) Vs Mr. D. Varalaxmi

K.Raghavulu Vs T.Srinivasarao and Another

Narreddula Venkata Krishnareddy, Vs Mallela Narasamma

M/s. Ananth Gas Services, Bharat Gas Distributors a Vs M/s. Canara bank, a Nationalised Bank

Koya Harish, rep. by his G.P. a. Koya Prasada Rao, Vs Gudivada Bharath Mohan

Sagiraju Srinivasa Raju Vs Akkina Krishnamurthy