LexKOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO AND ORS. versus LAND "ACQUISITION OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., A.P
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 639 KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO AND ORS. V.' LAND "ACQUISITION OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., A.P. (Civil Appeal Nos.2565-2571 of 2011) MARCH 17, 2011 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Land Acquisition - Land ·belonging to appellants acquired A 8 on basis of requisition made by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) - Compensation awarded C - Claimants-appellants filed execution petitions - APSRTC filed application in the execution petitions for impleading itself as the second respondent - Application dismissed, which order was upheld upto the level of Supreme Court - In the execution petitions, calculations made by decree holders- D appellants regarding the decretal amount was accepted by the Executing Court and the Land Acquisition Officer was directed to deposit the amounts in terms of the calculations made by the decree holders - APSRTC filed civil revisions against the order of Executing Court - Revision petitions dismissed by E High Court, which order was upheld by the Supreme Court - Revision petitions filed by Land Acquisition Officer against the very same order of the Executing Court - Allowed by High Court - Justification of - Held: Not justified - The Land Acquisition Officer was trying to'fight a battle of APSRTC which F APSRTC had already lost - All through, the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer was a party to all the proceedings including the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the APSRTC, firstly, for its impleadment and, secondly, against the order passed by the Executing Court accepting the calculation memos ..:. It is G only when all the controversies were closed that the Land Acquisition Officer chose to file the Civil Revision Petitions - This course cannot be approved as the Land Acquisition Officer could not have, at this juncture, filed the Civil Revision 639 H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R. A Petitions and even if those Civil Revisions were filed and could be entertained, all the questions regarding the correctness of the calculation memos had also been finally closed, firstly, by the judgment in civil revision petitions filed by the APSRTC and lastly by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed s challenging the calculation memos - Order of the High Court set aside and that of the Executing Court restored. . · Based on a requisition made by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the lands belonging to the appellants were acquired for the C purpose of construction of a bus station. Possession was taken and compensation award was passed. The appellants made reference uls. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation. In appeal, the High Court confirmed the said judgment. D The claimants-appellants filed execution petitions. While the execution petitions were pending, APSRTC filed application in the execution petitions for impleading itself as: the second respondent. The application was dismissed, which order was upheld right up to the level E of the Supreme Court. In the execution petitions, the calculations made by the decree holder-appellants regarding the decretal amount were accepted by the Executing Court and the F Land Acquisition Officer-judgment debtor was directed to depositthe amounts in terms of the calculations made by the decree holders. APS.RTC filed civil revisions against the order of the Executing Co1,1rt. The revision petitions were dismissed G by the ·High c;ourt, which order was uphel.d by the Supreme Coulit:. H Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer filed revision petitions against the very same order of the KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO v. LAND ACQUISITION 641 OFFR. AND REV. DIV. OFFCR., A.P. Executing Court which were allowed by the High Court. A In the instant appeal, the appellants ·contended that the High Court was in complete error'.in allowing the civil revisions filed by the Land Acquisition· Officer inasmuch as nothing was left in the said executions had become 8 final against the APSRTC. It was contended that what could not be achieved by APSRTC was now being tried to be achieved by the Land Acquisition Officer. Allowing the appeals, the Court . c HELD:1.1. In the judgment of the High. Court disposing of the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the APSRTC, the question of correctness of the calculation memos filed by the appellants-claimants was specifically raised. However, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.