Allowed

The Special Deputy Collector La Cum Loc v. Thokala Ashok

Telangana HC3 Feb 2023CRP/304/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition in execution proceedings filed by a Special Deputy Collector against decree holders. The Court quashed an order attaching the Collector's movable properties, holding that the trial court failed to ascertain the disputed amount due before issuing the warrant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of attachment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court to ascertain the amount payable by the petitioner before issuing warrants of attachment.

The Special Deputy Collector La Cum Loc Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 304 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Section 1 15 of CPC against the order dated 31-10-2022 passed in E.P No 2/2015 in L.A.O.P. No 698/2003 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Special Deputy Collector L.A. Cum Loc, Unit SRSP (Land Acquisition Officer) Pochampad.

¶9

... Petitioner/JDr.

¶10

AND

¶11

Thokala Ashok, S/o. Malkaiah, Aged about 30 years,

¶12

Smt. Gundla Ashamma, W/o. Bhojanna, Aged about 60 years,

¶13

Boda Chinnu Bai, S/o. Lingam, Aged about 45 years,

¶14

Jakka Pothanna, S/o. Bhojanna, Aged about 60 years

¶15

Smt. Pothani Posani, Wo. Baddenna, Aged about 60 years,

¶16

T. Vishwanatham, S/o. Kistaiah, Aged about 46^years,

¶17

Smt Utnoor Malku Bai, Wo. Gangaram, Aged about 60 years,

¶18

Smt Toparam Gangubai, Wo. Gundla Nadipi Sayanna, Aged about 60 years,

¶19

Battu Kistubai, W/o. Lingam, Aged about 45 years

¶20

'10. Battu Pedda Narsaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 50 years

¶21

1 1 . Vodla Mokkadam Mallaiah, Sio. Mallaiah, Aged about 60 years

¶22

12.Pilla Gangaram, S/o. Pitla Sayanna, Aged about 48 years

¶23

Pitla Suguna, S/o. Pitla Sayanna, Aged about 48 years

¶24

Bandi Mallu Bai, W/o. Narsimulu, Aged about 50 years

¶25

Bandi Ganga Narsu, W/o. Chinna Yerranna, Aged about 35 years

¶26

1 6. Chepur Gangadhar, S/o. Rajanna., Aged about 34^years

¶27

Smt Chepur Posani, W/o. Rajeshwar, Aged about 35 years 18.Angari Linganna, S/o. Raja Lingu, Aged about 52 years 19.Smt Battu Posani, W/o. Nalla Poshetty, Aged about 50 years 20. Kanakapuram Srinivas Chary, S/o. Gunda Chary 2'1. Devathi Raja Lingam, S/o. Buchanna, Aged about 64 years, 22.Devalhi Rajanna, S/o. Narsimulu, Aged about 58 years, 23.Mulugu Bagbaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 32 years, 24.Nadipi Babaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 35 years, 25.Smt A. Buchamma, W/o. Narsimulu, Aged about 50 years, 26.N Linganna, S/o. Linganna, Aged about 40 years, 27.Smt Buchamma, W/o. Pochamma, Aged about 52 years, 28.Smt Gangu Bai, W/o. P. Sayanna, Aged about 35 years, 29.Nadipi Sayanna, S/o. Poshetty, Aged about 49 years, 30-Mulugu Sunkari Gangu, W/o. Late Gangaram, Aged about 52 years, 31 . Smt Sunkari Gangu, Wo. Narsimuloo, Aged about 38 years,

¶28

32.Golla Shivanna, W/o. Shivanna, Aged about 45 years, 33.Smt P Devai, W/o. Pedda Mallaiah, Aged about 50 years,

¶29

Kothiti Rajanna, S/o. Rajalinga, Aged about 56 years,

¶30

35.Boda Narsaiah, S/o. Sayanna, Aged about 46 years, 36.Smt Teppa Budevi, Wo. Linganna, Aged about 56 years,

¶31

Boda Raju Bai, W/o. Poshanna, Aged about 45 years,

¶32

Boda Ganga Ram, S/o,. Baddanna, Aged about 50 years,

¶33

39.Bandi Yerranna, S/o. Buchanna, Aged about 60 years,

¶34

Yenugula Narsimulu, S/o. Rajanna, Aged about 60 years,

¶35

41 . Chepur Gangu bai, Wo. Rajanna, Aged about 55 years,

¶36

Nanam Mallaiah, S/o. Poshetty, Aged about 58 years,

¶37

Smt Bhoornai, W/o. Hanmandlu, Aged about 40 years,

¶38

44.Smt Nara Bai, Wo. Pedda Narsaiah, Aged about 50 years( all are residents of Balkonda Village of Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District)

...RESPONDENTS

l I I I

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed, therewith, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No. 2 of 2015, dated. 31-10-2022 in O,P.No. 698 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad for the production of the attached property pending of the C.R.P.

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. GP FOR ARBITRATION

¶44

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶45

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶46

¶47

HON()URABLE SN{T. IUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶48

C.R,P.No.304 of 2023

¶49

OI(DEII:

¶50

l'his revision is iiled against the ordcr, datccl 31.10.2022, passed by thc learned I-Additiorral District iuclge,^{Nizamabad,in E.P.No.2of 2015 in LAOP No 6c)B of} 2()03.

¶51

Learncrl counsel for the petitioner su bnrits that respondents herein/Decrec Holders filed E.P., ;rgainst the pctitioner herein/Judgnrent debtor-Speciat Deputy Collector, LA-cum-Loc, Unit SRSP (Lancl Acquisition Officer) Pocharnpad for attachment of the movables of J.Drs.,^{for realization of the decretalamount.Learnecl} counsel for the petitioner submits that L.A.O.P.No.698 of 2003 was decreecl on 13.08.2012 for acquiring the lands of the responderlts to an cxtent of Ac.1-05 guntas for excavation of canal and thev were awarded compensatiorr

¶52

¶53

with interest and solatium and, they arc entitlec-l for total amount of Rs.62,85,100,/- ancl prayecl to attarch the nrovabies of ].Dr.

¶54

Learned Government Pleader made appearance on

¶55

behalf of the respondents and stated that entire amount is already deposited.

¶56

Leamed counsel for the petitioner here.in stater'l that they have filed calculation memo in ptrge Nos.16 and 17 of the paper book to show that they have depositetl entire amount of Rs.51,13,353/- arrd they need rlot pay any amount. Further, the respondents hcrein also filed calculation memo in page Nos.18 and 19 in wirich it appears that they have paid an amount of Rs.51,13,353/- and balance due as on24.70.2079 was Rs.12,08,620/-. A perusal of the order shows that the officer has not ascertained the amount to be paid by Land Acquisition Officer. Though, both the calculation memos are filed by both the counsel

¶57

¶58

¶59

ancl th(.re was Llisputc rellarcling the amount to be paicl b1, then-r. Thc off icer has not ascertained l'row much amoutrt is to lre paicl bv the Larrtl Accluisition Officer, but simply passed orclt'rs in execntion proceedings attaching the movablt: proptrties of the office of the J.Dr. The contention of ttrc J.Dr., is that thev have already depositecl the entire .ulroLllrt, w,ht,rctis the D.llrs., statec'l that therc is still clr-rt'of Rs. I 2,08,62(),/ - ancl it is fcrr the Court to clecicle how mtrcl.r .rmount is to lre paicl by tl're J.Dr., before issuing warrant against the office of the Special Deputy Collector. But the trial Court evcn without ascertaining the amount issued attachment of rnovable Lrroperties and the order of the trial Court is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

¶60

In thc result, the civil revision petition is allowed at the admission stage ancl the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a rlirection to ascertain the amount to be paid by the revisiorr petitioner/J.Dr., before issuing warrant of

¶61

¶62

-.-

¶63

att.rchmcnt of movable properties of J.Dr., .rntl then, p.rss

¶64

necessary orders. No order as to costs.

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if anv, shall stancl

¶66

closed.

¶67

SD/- R. KARTHIKEYAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// i

.d'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The I Additional^{District Judge at Nizamabad}

¶74

One CC to GP^{FOR ARBITRATION,} [OPUC]

¶75

Two CD CoPies

PSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310212023

j STAI,:
,,<br>tP ii
rs itsNE
t

¶81

ORDER

¶82

CRP.No.304 of 2023

¶83

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION AT THE ADMISSION STAGE.

¶84

The Special Deputy Collector La Cum Loc v. Thokala Ashok

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Deputy Collector La Cum Loc v. Thokala Ashok

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

D. Mallesh, Vs D. Sukanya , Urmila, and Another

D. Vinod Joseph , Vinod Dass, Vs Mrs. Nirmala Helen, , Nirmala Rao, and 3 Others

Syed Hasan Ali Abidi Vs Smt. Arjumand Sultana , Arjumand Fatima and Another

Saroj Kumar Dhir, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Abdul Mazid Vs M/S. Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and the State of Ap

Akhil Ahmed, Vs Siddiqa Nikhat and Another