Allowed

Gottumukkala Satyanarayana Raju (died) v. Land Acquisition officer (Rdo)

Telangana HC5 Dec 2014CRP/534/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of twelve civil revision petitions regarding the closure of execution certificates. The executing court had closed the petitions on the grounds of lack of interest in prosecution and failure to realize surety bonds. This Court set aside the closure, holding that the executing court ought not to have closed the petitions merely because they were pending since 2000/2001.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the executing Court are set aside and execution petitions are restored to file for proceeding in accordance with law.

Gottumukkala Satyanarayana Raju (died) Vs Land… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

C.R.P.Nos.529,531,532,533,534, 535,536,537,538,539,540 and 541 of 2012

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

I have heard Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Chinthalapudi Laxmi Kumari, learned standing counsel for the Food Corporation of India appearing for the second respondent.

¶5

Since common questions of law and fact would arise for consideration in all these revision petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.

¶6

The revision petitioners are the decree holders and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the judgment debtors and the other respondents are the sureties. The petitioners/decree holders filed the execution petitions (E.Ps.) to realise the awarded amounts in the land acquisition proceedings, whereunder their lands were acquired. They got attached the movable properties belonging to the respondents/judgment debtors in the E.Ps.

¶7

The Bailiff of the Court in the presence of the petitioners/decree holders and their men attached the movable properties with the sureties after obtaining security bonds from the sureties for the safe custody of the properties. The movable properties attached subsequently were brought to sale. The executing Court ordered notices to the sureties for production of the attached movable properties. The sureties appeared through a counsel, but failed to produce the attached movable properties. Under the surety bonds executed by them earlier, the sureties

¶8

undertook to produce the movable properties before the Court as and when directed, failing which they agreed to pay the face value mentioned in the bonds to the petitioners/decree holders. As the sureties failed to produce the movable properties before the Court, the petitioners/decree holders filed petitions under Sections 145 and 146 C.P.C. against them for the face value of the bonds executed by them with subsequent interest thereon enabling them (petitioners) to realise the said amounts towards satisfaction of the decree amounts. The petitioners/decree holders, however, failed to proceed against the sureties to realise the said amounts.

¶9

The learned executing Court considering that the E.Ps. were filed in the year 2000/2001 and that attached movable properties were not made available for sale before the executing Court and also on the ground that the petitioners/decree holders have not been evincing any interest to prosecute the decree, closed the E.Ps. by the impugned orders, stating that the petitioners/decree holders can proceed against the sureties to recover the bond amounts as there was an order by the executing Court enabling the petitioners/decree holders to recover the said amounts from the sureties.

¶10

Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners/decree holders, would contend that the amounts covered by the bonds executed by the sureties are not sufficient to satisfy the decree amounts and some more amounts have to be recovered and therefore, the executing Court committed a serious error in closing the E.Ps. on the ground that the petitioners/decree holders could not get the attached movable properties produced

¶11

before the executing Court.

¶12

On the other hand, Smt.Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent, would submit that the executing Court rightly held that the petitioners/decree holders can proceed against the sureties and did not commit any error in closing the E.Ps. on the failure by the petitioners/decree holders to prosecute E.Ps. and contends that the impugned orders passed by the executing Court need no interference.

¶13

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/decree holders, it is the duty of the executing Court to get the attached movable properties before the Court and on the ground that the sureties failed to produce the movable properties, the executing Court is not supposed to close the E.Ps. Further, apart from proceeding against the sureties in respect of the bonds executed by them by taking the attached movable properties into safe custody, the petitioners/decree holders can avail other modes for realization of the E.P. amounts. The learned counsel for the petitioners/decree holders submits that after filing of the E.Ps., the petitioners/decree holders were subjected to needless litigation and ultimately, the matter went up to the Supreme Court and therefore, it is not correct on the part of the executing Court to say that the petitioners/decree holders did not evince any interest in prosecuting the E.Ps.

¶14

In any event, in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that since huge amounts are to be recovered under E.Ps., the learned executing Court ought not to

¶15

have closed the E.Ps. on the mere ground that they have been pending since 2000/2001.

¶16

The impugned orders passed by the executing Court, are therefore, set aside and the E.Ps. are restored to file. The executing Court is directed to proceed with the E.Ps. in accordance with law.

¶17

Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

___________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 05^th December, 2014 GHN

Gottumukkala Satyanarayana Raju (died) v. Land Acquisition officer (Rdo)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gottumukkala Satyanarayana Raju (died) v. Land Acquisition officer (Rdo)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bolisetty Babji, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary to

K. Gopinath, Vs The Government of A.P.

Uppu Archana, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Bollam Chennalu, Vs The Telangana Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Kalidindi Venkata Narasimha Raju (died) (20th DHr) Vs Land Acquisition Officear (Rdo)

Arepalli Venkat Narasamma (died) Vs Land Acquisition Officear (Rdo)