RASARANJAN Vs. Y RAJA RAJASWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of six Revision Petitions arise out of Land Acquisition Proceedings and they relate to questions of execution.

(2.) A learned single Judge referred these cases to a Division Bench. The facts leading to this reference may be stated: The land belonged to one S R Y Sivaramaprasad, the Raja of of Challapalli was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894. The original owner entered into an agreement to sell these lands with one Seshagiri Rao, Managing partner of Lalitha Enterprises prior to the acquisition proceedings and hence the purchaser also was entitled to compensation. The Collector passed an award fixing the compensation and the claim for higher compensation was referred to civil court in 0 P Nos. 148 and 304/74 on the file of Additional Chief Judge-cum Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The Revision Petitioners and some others who are claimants in those Land Acquisiton proceedings being partners of Lalitha Enterprises relinquished their claim in favour of the said Seshagiri Rao and gave affidavits to that effect and those affidavits were filed in the civil court where the reference was pending and they were marked as Exs. A-7 to A-25. Subsequently a decree was passed by the civil court by its judgment dated 13-9-1978 enhancing the compensation in those two 0 Ps. The claimants did not prefer appeals against the judgments and decrees, but the State preferred appeals CCA Nos. 34 & 35 of 1979 and they are pending in this court. On an application for stay filed by the State this court in its order dated 30-3-78 directed that the State should deposit the entire compensation together with interest at the rate of 4% p.a. and costs within two months therearfer and directed that the respondents in those appeals who are the claimants in the Land Acquisition proceedings are entitled to draw half of the compensation amount and costs without furnishing security and the remaining half on furnishing bank guarantee of immoveable property security to the satisfaction of the lower court. Thereupon the legal representatives of the said Seshagiri Rao filed E P Nos. 2 and 3 of 1979 in 0 P Nos. 148 and 304/74 respectively for realising the decretal amount. They also filed E.A. Nos. 34 and 35/79 in 0 P Nos. 143 and 145/74 for a declaration that in view of the reliquishment of the rights by the other claimants in favour of Seshagiri Rao they alone are entitled to claim the entire compensation in deposit and hence the amount may be paid to them. On the otherhand the Revision Petitioners filed E P Nos. 11 end 12 of 79 in those two 0 Ps for realising the amounts due to them under the decrees and also filed E A Nos. 27 and 28 of 1979 requesting the court not to disburse the amounts in the E Ps filed by the legal representatives of Seshagirirao without making an enquiry about the rights asserted by them to receive the amount exclusively.

(3.) We shall refer the legal representatives of Seshagirirao, the respondents in these revisions as claimants and the revision ' petitioners as opposing claimants and claimants who supported the legal representives of Ssshagirirao and got impleaded in two revisions assupporting claimants. The Revision petitioners contested the claim of the legal representatives of Seshagirirao stating that those affidavits have no relevancv in these proceedings and some of the affidavits have been forged and they also raised a contention thet the civil court where this reference is pending has a limited jurisdiction to decide the quantum of compensation and the legal representatives of Seshagiri Rao cannot execute decrees without assignment of decrees in their favour. Thereupon the court passed an order on 27-6-79 overruling the preliminary objection and held that the applications by the claimants respondents are maintainable and they are liable to be enquired. C R P.Nos. 3781/ 79 and 3812/79 are filed by two opposing claimants M/s D. Rasaranjan and S. Prasad Reddy against the order dated 27-6-79 in E.P Nos., 2 and 3 of 79. Thereafter when the matter was posted for further enquiry after the order dated 27-6-79 no evidence was adduced in support of the contention that the affidavits are forged and the court observed that the petitioners who wanted to adduce evidence did not do so and they rest contented with the oral argument that the applications are not maintainable, and thereupon after hearing the arguments the court below passed an order en 2-7-79 dismissing the E.Ps 11 and 12/79 filed by the revision petitioners in C.R P. Nos., 4992 and 5027/79 and allowing the applications filed by the respondents herein (the legal representatives of Seshagiritso) in E.A Nos 34 and 35/79 The only prayer in E.A Nos. 27 and 28 of 1979 filed by the opposing claimants being not to disburse the compensation amount without making an enquiry were closed as unnecessary in view of the fact that the matter was fully heard. E.P.Nos. 2 and 3 of 79 filed by the respondents the legal representatives of Seshagirirao ere also closed as the amounts were deposited bv the Slate after recording part satisfaction.