Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010509992017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2753/2017 Between: 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-TAHSILDAR,, AKIVIDU. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. GOKARAJU MADHAVA VARMA DIED, S/O PEDA RANGA RAJU R/O JUVVALAPALEM D.NO.1-193/1, MAIN ROAD, KALLA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. GOKARAJU SURYAKANTHAM, W/O. GOKARAJU MADHAV VARMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF D.NO.193/1, JUVVALAPALEM, KALLA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534236. 3. GOKARAJU SATYA VENKATA MOHANA RANGA PRASAD VARMA, S/O. GOKARAJU MADHAVA VARMA, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF D.NO.193/1, JUVVALAPALEM, KALLA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534236. 4. GOKARAJU KANAKA VENKATA NARASIMHA VARMA, S/O. GOKARAJU MADHAVA VARMA, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF D.NO.193/1, JUVVALAPALEM, KALLA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534236. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toto allow the CRP by setting aside the order dt 19/10/2016 passed in EP.N0. 135/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 3627 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order dated 19.10.2016 passed in EP NO.135 of 2011 in LAOP NO.38/1989 on the file of Learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRPMP 6894 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased extend the time granted by this Hon'ble Court in CRP No.2753/2017 dated 07.07.2017 by 8 weeks to comply the Hon'ble Court orders IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to bring the petitioners as respondents 2 to 4 as legal representatives of the deceased respondent in the above CRP.No. 2753/2017 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M ADINARAYANA RAJU 2. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY 3 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2753/2017 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in E.P.No.135 of 2011 in LAOP No.38 of 1999 dated 11.02.1991 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhimavaram. The Petitioner herein is the Respondent/Judgment Debtor and the Respondents herein are the Decree holders/Petitioners in Execution Petition. 2. Heard both parties. 3. It transpires from the record that the Respondent No.1 herein has filed L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1989 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhimavaram seeking compensation. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.01.1991 in the said LAOP, the award was passed in favour of the Respondents herein. Against the said order, the Respondent herein has filed Appeal Suit bearing A.S.No.4 of 1993 before this Court. This Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.10.2000 in A.S.No.4 of 1993 had confirmed the award passed by the trial court indicating that market value per acre is @ Rs. 80,000/- and Rs.22,000/- for 22 Coconut trees. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner had filed Special Leave Petition No.572 of 2002 against the order of this Court in A.S.No.4 of 1993. After hearing, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the said SLP on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 4. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 herein viz., Gokaraju Madhava Varma had filed E.P.No.135 of 2011 and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide order dated 19.10.2016 has disposed of the E.P by directing the Respondent/LAO to deposit Rs.14,10,935/- as per the Calculation Memo filed by the Claimant/Decree Holder dated 09.08.2016. Challenging the said order the Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Land Acquisition Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial judge had failed to consider the calculation memo filed by the revision 4 petitioner while passing the impugned order. Whereas the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside as the same is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions and the learned judge ought to have taken note of payment of said amounts in right perspective manner and finally prays this Court to allow this Revision Petition. 6. It transpires from the record that, at the time of admission, this Court vide Order dated 07.07.2017 had granted conditional interim stay of execution proceedings, subject to deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- by the revision petitioner to the credit of E.P.No.135 of 2011 in LAOP No.38 of 1989 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhimavaram within eight (08) weeks from that date. On query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after lapse of eight years, the said amount was not deposited into the LAOP account. It is not the case of the petitioner that non-compliance of the order was due to out of control of the respondent or it was restrained by any other orders or proceedings. 7. It is well settled principle that once the petitioner got the conditional interim order, and if the same was not complied by the petitioner, having invited the same, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court. By mentioning the said principle, even in the instant case, though the conditional interim direction was passed by this Court on 07.07.2017, the petitioner did not evince any interest to deposit the award amount before the court below. Hence the C.R.P is liable to be dismissed, as the revision petitioner is utterly failed to comply with the order of this Court dated 07.07.2017. 8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 5 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 29.06.2026 MNR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No 6 130 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2753 OF 2017 Dt: 29.06.2026 Mnr