APHC010587162017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2417/2017 Between: T.bhaskar Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Special Deputy Collector ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.2417 of 2017 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2417 of 2017 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the CPC, is filed impugning the order dated 31.01.2017 in E.P.No.97 of 2016 in O.P.No.18 of 1992 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. 2. Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, the learned counsel for revision petitioners and learned GP for Arbitration submitted their arguments. 3. Perused the record. 4. O.P.No.18 of 1992 was a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. By an order dated 30.12.1999, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu answered the reference in the following terms: “In the result this reference is answered fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per acre and that the LAO is directed to pay solatium at 30% of the market value, Addl. Market value at 12% for the period between the date of notification and date of taking possession and interest at 9% for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and at 15% for the remaining period till the date of deposit. Each party to bear their own costs.” 5. Aggrieved of it, Government preferred A.S.No.1567 of 2000. After due hearing, the Division Bench of this court, by an order 3 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.2417 of 2017 dated 20.10.2010 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the court below. 6. Thereafter, DHrs filed E.P.No.97 of 2016 under Order 21 Rule 52 CPC seeking attachment of Rs.5,31,316/- belonged to the Government lying in an account that is mentioned in the execution petition. Government raised a contest. Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge by an order dated 31.01.2017 found that only Rs.23,672/- was due to the DHrs and therefore, the attachment that was earlier ordered on 21.07.2016 was modified and the attachment was made absolute only for that amount. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, DHrs preferred this revision under section 115 CPC. 8. During hearing, by the memo dated 18.03.2025, revision petitioners filed their calculations. According to the learned counsel, Rs.3,29,488/- could be stated to be the amount that was overdue. On behalf of the respondent/ Government, calculations dated 25.03.2024 are placed on record showing that the balance to be paid to the revision petitioners is only Rs.13,505/-. The outcome of these facts does show that neither side agrees with the amount that was arrived at by the court below in the impugned order. 4 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.2417 of 2017 9. After hearing on both sides, this court is of the opinion that the execution court may consider the matter afresh after giving due opportunity to both sides to submit their calculations. 10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order dated 31.01.2017 of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu in E.P.No.97 of 2016 in O.P.No.18 of 1992 is set aside. The learned execution court is directed to take up the said execution petition afresh and grant time to both sides to submit their fresh calculations and submit their arguments and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with the law. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date:22.04.2025 Dvs 5 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.2417 of 2017 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2417 of 2017 Date: 22.04.2025 Dvs