The Land Acquisition Officer and R.D.O. vs Mylarapu Venkulu (dies) by L.Rs.

Motilal B. Naik, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of warrant of attachment issued by the Subordinate Judge, Suryapet in E.P.No. 64 of 1991 in O.P .No. 4 of 1976 dated 19-1-1993.

The short question that falls for consideration is whether the lower Court was proper in entertaining the execution proceedings filed by the respondents seeking to implement the judgment and decree dated 17-8-1988 in A.S.Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982 on the file of this Court?

Few facts are necessary to clinch the issue either way and therefore, they are stated as under:-Lands of the respondents and others were acquired for the purpose of formation of by-pass road on National Highway No. 9 after following necessary formalities and award was passed on 16-10-1974 in award proceedings No. D/4975/73. The claimants sought reference to the civil Court u/s 18 of the land Acquisition Act not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was taken up . by the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda in O.P.No. 4/76. The Civil Court by judgment dated 31-1-1981 enhanced the compensation. As against the award passed by the civil Court, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred A.S. No. 1343/82 in this Court whereas some of the claimants, who were parties to the O.P. preferred A.S.Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982 in this Court, not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the civil Court. This Court while disposing of the three appeals - one filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the rest by some of the claimants - by common judgment dated 17-8-1988 dismissed A S No. 1343/82 while allowing A.S.Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982. While doing so the judgment and decree passed by the civil Court were modified in terms of the decree passed by this Court in the appeals.

Respondents herein, though failed to prefer appeals in this Court aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the civil Court in proceedings u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, filed E.P.No. 64 of 1991 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Suryapet seeking implementation of the decree passed by this Court on 17-8-1988. It was contended before the Court below by the respondents that though they are not parties to the appeals, by virtue of the Judgment of this Court dated 17-8-1988 modifying the decree passed by the civil Court in O.P.No. 4/76, they are entitled to file execution proceedings for realisation of the compenation in terms of the decree passed by this Court on 17-8-1988. Though it was contended on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer that there is no decree in favour of the respondents herein as to enable them to take recourse to execution, the Court below rejected the said contention and issued warrant of attachment for realisation of the decretal amount.

It is no doubt true that this Court by common judgment dated 17-8-1988 while dismissing A.S.No. 1343/82 filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and allowing A.S.Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982 filed by some of the claimants modified the decree passed by the civil Court in O.P.No. 4/76; the respondents cannot claim to be the beneficiaries of such decree. It is well settled that a person who approaches a competent Court only gets benefits by virtue of orders of that Court. In the instant case, the respondents allowed the judgment and decree passed by the civil Court in O.P.No. 4/76 to become final. They were satisfied with the compensation awarded by the civil Court and, therefore, they did not choose to prefer any appeal. On the contrary, some of the claimants, who were covered by the same notification and claimants to O.P.No. 4/76 preferred A.S.Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982 whereas the Land Acquisition Officer, aggrieved by the award passed by the civil Court, preferred A.S.No. 1343/82. This Court by common judgment dated 17-8-1988, while dismissing A.S.No. 1343/82 filed by the Government and allowing A.S.Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982, modified the Judgment and decree of the civil Court in O.P.No. 4/76 granting some benefits to the appellants in A.S.Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982. Therefore, the beneficiaries of the judgment of this Court dated 17-8-1988 are only those appellants who filed A.S.Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982. Those appellants alone are entitled to seek recourse to execution proceedings. The respondents, in whose favour no order is available from this Court, cannot claim that they are entitled to file execution proceedings.

The Land Acquisition Act itself comes to the assistance of the parties notwithstanding the fact that the matter was either not carried by them by way of Section 18 reference or a further appeal against Section 18 proceedings, for seeking recourse to provisions u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector for re-determination of the compensation in terms of the final order passed by any Court enhancing the compensation awarded by the forums below, provided they are covered by the same notification.

The provisions are so specific in this aspect as to the respondents could have availed of such an opportunity basing on the judgment and decree passed by this Court in A.S.Nos. 267 and 3223 of 1982 dated 17-8-1988. On the contrary, the respondents resorted to filing execution proceedings as if they have an executable decree in their favour. In fact, there is no executable decree in their favour. Therefore, they are not entitled to file execution proceedings.

In the circumstances, I hold that there is no executable decree in favour of the respondents enabling them to file execution proceedings for realisation of the decretal amount. Consequently, the proceedings in E.P.No. 64/91 are quashed and the revision petition is allowed. No costs.

Learned Counsel for the respondents pleads that under a mistaken notion, the respondents filed execution proceedings and, therefore, they could be permitted to move the appropriate authority for the purpose of realisation of benefits conferred to them u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. I am afraid, in proceedings u/s 115 CPC, I cannot grant such a request. However, I would only say that it is open to the respondents to take recourse to such proceedings, if they are so advised and if they are entitled to as per law.