Order Content

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (PoA) ACT –CUM-VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: KURNOOL

Present:- Smt. V.A.L. Sathyavathi,

Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act –cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool

Tuesday, the 23rd day of August, 2022

E.P. No.559/2021 in LAOP No.29/2016

M/s. TGV SRAAC Ltd., Kurnool formerly Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies @ Allied Chemicals Ltd., Gondiparla by its Executive Director, K. Karunakar Rao, Kurnool.

…..Petitioner/Decree Holder

Versus

Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool. (Award No.1/2015, purpose of construction of Railway coach workshop)

… Respondent/Judgment Debtor

This petition coming on 29.07.2022 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Krishnam Naidu, Advocates for the Petitioner/Decree Holder and of Government Pleader, for Judgment Debtor/respondent; upon hearing the arguments and having the matter stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is an execution petition filed by D.Hrs U/o.21 R.43 and

77 of Civil Procedure Code seeking attachment of movable property of

J.Dr to realize the Execution Petition claim by bringing the said property

for sale after due proclamation.

The case of D.Hrs as could be seen from affidavit and E.P form, in brief, is as follows:

Decree Holder contends that he is a claimant in the LAOP 29/2016. Respondent herein acquired his land in E.Thandrapadu village for the purpose of construction of railway coach in Award No.1/2015 dated 07.02.2015. He received compensation amount of Rs.38,59,678/- under protest and sought for reference u/s.18 of Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, Land Acquisition Officer/respondent referred the matter to this court. after due enquiry, this court passed decree and order dated 14.10.2019 enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs.6,17,726/- to Rs.38,72,000/- per acre. As per the decree and judgment, respondent/Judgment Debtor did not deposit the decreetal amount towards full satisfaction of the decreetal amount.

Decree Holder contends that though land was acquired six years ago, Judgment Debtor failed to pay the decreetal amount and hence this Execution Petition is filed for realization of the decreetal amount. Total amount claimed by Decree Holder in this Execution Petition is Rs.2,35,72,376/-. Therefore, Decree Holder prays this court to issue sale notice to the respondent under order 21 rule 43 of Civil Procedure Code and to order to attachment of Execution Petition scheduled movable properties belong to respondent under order 21 rule 43 of Civil Procedure Code to realize the Execution Petition claim by brining said property for sale after due proclamation under order 21 rule 77 of Civil Procedure Code, in the interest of justice.
Against this, respondent/Judgment Debtor filed counter with the following averments:

Judgment Debtor denies all the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition and contends that this petition is not maintainable either on facts or on law.

Judgment Debtor contends that the calculations made by petitioner are incorrect and this petition is filed for wrongful gain.
Execution Petition scheduled property is not the property of Judgment Debtor and it is not in possession of Judgment Debtor and it

is not in the custody of Judgment Debtor and it is not exclusive property of Judgment Debtor and hence Execution Petition is not tenable against the petition schedule property.

Judgment Debtor contends that the value shown in the petition by Decree Holder is far low and incorrect and the Judgment Debtor is not having any salable interest. Decree Holder is claiming excessive interest with wrong calculations for wrongful gain.
Judgment Debtor contends that this office has filed an appeal along with stay petition against the orders in LAOP 29/2016 and proceedings in EP 559/2021. Then the Hon'ble High Court of AP has taken this case as LAAS No.39/2022 which is pending before Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Therefore, Judgment Debtor prays this court to dismiss the petition with costs, in the interest of justice.
Both the parties did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor.

10. Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether E.P. schedule movable properties can be attached in execution of decree dated 14.10.2019 by Decree Holder?"

Point answered:

It is an undisputed fact that government acquired land in an extent of Ac.2.93 cents in Sy.No.221 of Panchalingala village of Decree Holder for the purpose of construction of railway coach midlife rehabilitation work shop and passed award No.1/2015. Thereafter, Decree Holder received compensation amount of Rs.38,59,678/- under protest and at his request, LAO referred the matter to civil court u/s.18

of Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, after due enquiry, u/s.18 of L.A. Act, court granted compensation by enhancing the market value of acquired land from Rs.6,17,726/- to Rs.38,72,000/- per acre.

According to Decree Holder, after decree also Judgment Debtor has not paid any amount and not discharged the decree amount and thus Decree Holder filed this Execution Petition seeking to attach and sell the Execution Petition scheduled movable properties and realize the fruits of decree.
Execution Petition claimed amount is Rs.2,35,72,376/-. According to Decree Holder, it is not paid. It is not the case of Judgment Debtor that it is paid.
One of the contentions of Judgment Debtor is that calculations made by petitioner are incorrect. In what way they are incorrect and what is the correct amount is not specified by the Judgment Debtor either in the counter or during the enquiry. On the other hand, on verification of calculations made in the petition, it is found that all calculations made in Execution Petition are in accordance with the decree dated 14.10.2019. Hence, there is no substance in this contention.
The other contention of the Judgment Debtor is that Execution Petition scheduled property is not of Judgment Debtor and is not in possession of him and is not exclusive property of him and hence Execution Petition is not tenable against this Execution Petition scheduled property.
The property sought to be attached almiraiah, tables and long tables. Decree Holder sought for attachments of these items

saying that they are in the office of Judgment Debtor located in Kurnool. Address particulars of Judgment Debtor's office mentioned by Decree Holder is not disputed by Judgment Debtor either in the counter or during enquiry. Movable furniture in that office must naturally belong to that office. The contention of Judgment Debtor that it doesn't belong to Judgment Debtor simply means that they are not owned by the officers working there. In other words, that movable furniture belongs to government against which the unsatisfied award is put for execution. Hence, this contention of Judgment Debtor is negatived.

The other contention of Judgment Debtor is about value of the property. The furniture that has been in use in that government office. Though Judgment Debtor questions the correctness of values of the furniture shown in the petition schedule, he did not furnish the correct valuations of things as on now. Therefore, that contention is negatived.
The other contention of the Judgment Debtor is that Decree Holder claimed excessive interest. On verification of calculations made in Execution Petition shows that those calculations are made in accordance with interest granted in the decree only. If Judgment Debtor feels that interest granted in award passed by this court is excessive, Judgment Debtor has to challenge it in appeal. All calculations made in Execution Petition are in accordance with decree only. Hence, this contention of Judgment Debtor is negatived.
The other contention of Judgment Debtor is that they filed appeal along with stay petition seeking stay of proceedings in Execution Petition 559/2021 and same is pending. Both learned

counsels for Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor admit that petition seeking for stay of proceedings only pending for hearing and no such stay order is passed so far. Hence, there is no legal hurdle for Decree Holder in praying for decree dues. Therefore, this ground of Judgment Debtor is negatived. All the objections raised by Judgment Debtor are overruled and hence point is answered in favour of Decree Holder.

In the result, this petition is allowed. All objections raised at the stage of attachment u/o.21 R-43 are overruled. Issue warrant of attachment against petition schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this 23 rd day of August, 2022.

Sd/-V.A.L.Sathyavathi VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner/D.Hr. For respondent/J.Dr

-None-

Exhibits Marked

-Nil-