T HANMANTHU Vs. L A OP PJPGADWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REDDY, learned Counsel representing revision petitioner. The respondent had been served, proof of service had been filed and none represents the respondent.

(2.) SRI N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the learned Senior Civil judge, Narayanpet, committed a serious irregularity in holding that the claimant-petitioner is not entitled for interest from 22. 3. 1999 i. e. , the date of dismissal of O. P. till the disposal of the main O. P. The learned counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the grant of interest is a statutory relief under the provisions of Land acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Act 68 of 1984) as such the said relief cannot be denied nor subjected to any condition. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that fact that the interest is payable on the market value, solatium and the additional market value from the date of taking possession of the lands under acquisition, as a matter of right, as it is mandatory and it is not discretionary. Further, the learned Counsel had taken this court through different provisions of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also would maintain that in the facts and circumstances case the very making of the default order is not sustainable and further the Counsel would contend that in addition thereto imposition of onerous condition also cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decisions in Vijay kumar Madan and others v. R. N. Gupta technical Education Society and others, air 2002 SC 2082 and Khazan Singh (dead) by LRs. v. Union of India, 2002 (2) ALD 1 (SC) = (2002) 2 SCC 242.

(3.) THE civil revision petition is filed as against an order made in LA. No. 141 of 2007 in old O. P. No. 340 of 1995 (new O. P. No. 36 of 2007) dated 23. 11. 2007 wherein the learned Judge while restoring the main O. P. observed that the restoration is subject to the condition to be passed in the application under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC and in the application under Order IX Rule 9 it was observed that since LA. No. 813 of 2003 is allowed, this petition is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner is not entitled for interest from 22. 3. 1999 till disposal of the O. P. Both parties are directed to be ready for early disposal of the main o. P.