APHC010850202018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6721 and 6761 OF 2018 CRP.No.6721 OF 2018 : Between: Land Acqusition Officer(RDO, Ongole) ...PETITIONER AND Chakiri Pullamma Died and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) CRP.No.6761 OF 2018 Between: The Land Aqusition Officer(rdo Ongole) ...PETITIONER AND Konijeti Srimanarayna Died and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: CRP.Nos.6721 and 6761 of 2018 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6721 and 6761 of 2018 COMMON ORDER : 1. The Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the CRPs aggrieved by the order 27.09.2018 passed in EP.No.2 of 2004 in LAOP.No.61 of 1983 and order dated 28.08.2018 passed in EP.No.130 of 2011 in LAOP.No.127 of 1983. This Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings on 19.11.2018. 2. In both the CRPs the petitioner claims that the learned trial Judge had added interest for twenty-one years on two occasions and passed the impugned order. It is submitted that interest has been added which was already paid. 3. It is stated that the respondent in CRP.No.6761 of 2018 was in receipt of an excess amount of Rs.28,023/- as on 08.04.2002 and the respondent in CRP.No.6721 of 2018 was to receive an amount of Rs.84,644/- as on 22.01.1985. 4. The orders passed dated 30.11.1996 in LAOP.Nos.61 and 127 of 1983 did not enhance the awarded compensation at Rs.35,000/- per acre. However, held that the respondents are entitled to get the benefit of 30% solatium on the enhanced amount and 12% interest from the date of notification till the date of award and at 9% and 15% interest as per the provisions of CRP.Nos.6721 and 6761 of 2018 Section 28 of the Act on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment. 5. The learned Execution Court while allowing the execution petition had determined the amounts due payable to the respondents in terms of the order in LAOP. The following calculation was arrived at by the learned Judge in EP.No.2 of 2004 is as follows ; Enhanced award Rs.3,22,000.00 (-) Already paid amount Rs.1,95,730.00 Balance as per enchanced amount is : Rs.1,26,270.00 30% solatium on enhanced value 16,500* Ac.9.20 cents ---- 1,51,800 (22.7.1982 to 18.12.2003 as per decree) Rs.9,74,809.00 12% interest on 1,51,800 (21.12.1980 to 10.8.1982) as per decree Rs. 44,983.00 9% interest on 1,51,800 [From 22.7.1982 to 18.12.2003] (date of notification to date of EP) Rs.2,92,443.00 15% on 1,51,800 from 22.7.1982 to 18.12.2003 Rs.4,87,405.00 Total Rs.19,25,910.00 Less (-) Amounts paid in EP 84/1980 is Rs.2,30,715/- Paid by RDO on 5.2.2002 Rs.4,41,313/- Payment made on 12.7.2012 Rs. 35,192/- Total Rs.7,07,220/- Rs.7,07,220.00 ---------------------- Rs.12,18,690/- ---------------------- CRP.Nos.6721 and 6761 of 2018 6. Insofar as, EP.No.130 of 2011 is concerned, the learned Execution Court confirmed the claim of the decree holder as per the calculation memo submitted. The learned Government Pleader representing the petitioner submits that the interest could not have been determined to be paid twice. As such, submits that the respondents in CRP.No.6761 of 2018 erred in calculating interest on the enhanced amount on the solatium from the date of possession till the date of payment. It is also submitted that the learned Executing Court also erred in confirming the claim of respondents therein. 7. It is further submitted that the Executing Court while allowing EP.No.2 of 2004 had erred in adding interest on the enhanced amount twice. It is thus submitted that both the CRPs deserve to be allowed as the respondents were granted interest at 9% and 12% for the same period. 8. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 9. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act gives discretionary power to the Court. The interest awarded is seen as an increase in the value of the land and is treated as part of the enhanced CRP.Nos.6721 and 6761 of 2018 compensation. The enhanced compensation would have to be certainly paid with interest. 10. There is no error in calculation of interest by the learned Executing Court. The Executing Court has rightly determined the due amount payable in terms of the orders in LAOP.No.61 of 1983 and LAOP.No.127 of 1983. 11. The orders in LAOP Nos.61 and 127 of 1983 have attained finality and interest would have to be paid in terms of the orders. The calculation memo filed by the respondents is in accordance with the Award passed in LAOP.No.127 of 1983 and as such the learned Executing Court had allowed the EP in terms of the calculation memo submitted by the respondents. 12. The learned Executing Court has tabulated the claims and the entitlement of the respondents in terms of the order in LAOP.No.61 of 1983. Thus, the submission of the learned Government Pleader for petitioner that the interest has been paid twice is not factually correct and the interest paid is in accordance with the orders passed in LAOP Nos.61 and 127 of 1983. No valid grounds are raised for unsettling the findings of the learned Executing Court in the well-reasoned and well- considered orders passed in EP.No. 2 of 2004 and EP.No.130 of 2011. CRP.Nos.6721 and 6761 of 2018 13. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:14.10.2025 KGM CRP.Nos.6721 and 6761 of 2018 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6721 and 6761 of 2018 Dated 14.10.2025 KGM