B YASABANTA NARAYAN DEO Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the Order Dated 12.04.2001 passed by the Learned Civil Judges (Sr. Division), Gunupur in M.J.C. No. 13 of 1999.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioners is that land of the recorded Khatadar Smt. Laxmimani Devi situated at Marathiguda was acquired vide Revenue Department notification No.tA422/80 KPT 81625/R & 81626/R dated 12.10.1980 respectively under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The compensation fixed by the Collector for such acquisition was objected to by Bahubalendra Venkata Krishna Deo, the father of the present Petitioners, as the attorney holder of Smt. Laxmimani Devi. The Land Acquisition Officer, Koraput made reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gunupur which was registered as M.J.C. No. 35 of 1983. The referral Court, considering the evidence on record, by Order Dated 07.03.1986 fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per acre & granted 30% solatium & interest at the rate of 6% per annum since the date of dispossession till the payment is made. Against that order, the Opp. Parties preferred First Appeal No. 111 of 1986 before this Court. By Order Dated 30.06.1989, this Court dismissed the said appeal, confirmed the order of the lower Court & directed that the claimant (father of the present Petitioners) would be entitled to get statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act as amended vide Act 68 of 1984. After disposal of First Appeal No. 111 of 1989, the claimant B. Venkata Krishna Deo filed an execution petition registered as E.P. No. 7 of 1987 for realization of the compensation amount awarded in M.J.C. No. 35 of 1983. During the pendency of the execution petition, the claimant died & in his place the present Petitioners were substituted. As the award in MJC No. 35 of 1983 had not contained the statutory benefits as provided under the amended Act 68 of 1984, the Petitioners filed M.J.C. No. 13 of 1999' under Sections 151 & 152 of the CPC -before the Court below for amendment of the said award in terms of the direction of this Court contained in the Judgment rendered in First Appeal No. 111 of 1986. The Court below after hearing the parties allowed the said petition by granting an amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value of the acquired land in terms of Section 23 (1 -A) of the Act & enhanced the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 9% per annum on the excess amount of compensation awarded as provided in Section 28 of the Act. However, the Court below declined to award interest at the rate of 15% per annum, as per proviso to Section 28 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this revision.

(3.) MR . Das, Learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently opposes the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners & submits that this revision is not maintainable in view of amendment of the CPC.