JAYA CHANDRA MOHAPATRA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid three Civil Revisions have been filed against three separate orders passed against the petitioner by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gunupur on 28.8.1999. All the three revisions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) PETITIONER is the decree holder and he filed Execution Petition No. 7 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gunupur claiming realisation of the compensation amount awarded in his favour. It is noted in the impugned order and not disputed by the parties that an area of Ac. 5.10 cents of land of the petitioner in village Maratiguda was acquired by the State for the purpose of construction of rehabilitation colony of the flood affected people of Gunupur. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was made on 10.12.1980 and award under Section 11 was passed by the Collector on 13. 9.1981. Possession of the land was taken by the Collector on 15.9.1981. The L.A. Collector determined the total compensation of Rs. 48,573.24 paise. Petitioner received that amount under protest and claimed for a reference to the Civil Court. A reference under Section 18 was accordingly made and that was registered as M.J.C. No. 43 of 1989. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed the award under Section 26 of the Act on 27.11.1990 determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 40,000/ per acre and also awarded permissible statutory benefit as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Appeal under Section 54 of the Act carried by opposite party vide F.A. No. 103 of 1991 was dismissed and the award passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) was confirmed. That appeal was disposed of by this Court on 18.11.1991, but before that on 30.11.1990 in the Court below petitioner moved an application for amendment of the decree to award the benefit under Section 23(2) of the Act. That application was allowed by the Court below on 21.12.1990 and the solatium was enhanced to 30%. On 12.4.1991 petitioner filed another application registered as M.J.C. No. 14 of 1991 seeking review of the award and for necessary correction so as to amend the benefit under Section 28 as amended by Act 68 of 1984. That application was allowed on 30.7.1993. Petitioner again filed an application under Section 151, read with Section 152, CPC for amendment of the judgment and decree to grant the benefit under Section 23(1 A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. That was, registered as M.J.C. No. 30 of 1993. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) allowed that application on 8.10.1996. Thereafter, petitioner amended the execution application, but before that he had already received a sum of Rs. 3, 50,000/ besides the amount awarded under Section 11. When the matter stood thus, the opposite party filed application under Section 47, C.P.C. for disposal of the execution proceeding on the grounds that the benefit granted to the petitioner under Sections 23(1 A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act and amendment of the decree by the court below from time to time in that respect are not tenable in the eye of law and therefore the decree holder was not entitled to any further payment and that excess amount had been paid.

(3.) SO far as the Civil Revision No. 426 of 1999 is concerned, petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed in rejecting his application under Section 151, C.P.C. In that application petitioner has prayed to recall the orders dated 27.4.1998, 5.5.1998 and 16.7.1997 and to dismiss the application of the judgment debtor for this default in appearance on such dates. The court below has found that the Presiding Officer of the Court was not available to hear the execution petition and the objection raised by the judgment debtor and therefore order of adjournment passed on those three dates are neither illegal nor unjust or improper and therefore did not require to be recalled. Accordingly, application under Section 151, CPC filed by the petitioner was rejected. After perusal of the case record of the execution proceeding this Court finds no illegality or jurisdictional error in that order. Hence, Civil Revision No. 426 of 1999 is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.