CRP/4290/2025 of THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs RAVI KATTARI on 17 August 2026

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed to set aside the docket order of attachment dated 14.08.2025 in E.P.No.2870 of 2018 in LAOP.No.75 of 2007 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. I have heard Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.A.S.Vijayanand, counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate for the 2nd respondent.

3. Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that in respect of lands acquired from the 1st respondent, the land acquisition proceedings came to be initiated and originally the Reference Court had fixed Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. However, the same was reduced to Rs.87,200/- per cent by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.621 of 2018. He would also state that the judgment of the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was unable to succeed and in fact, liberty was only granted to the petitioner to clarify the amount due and payable by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that a review has been filed before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the same is yet to be listed and in the meantime, the Executing Court has proceeded to attach the immovable properties of the 1st respondent in respect of amounts due and payable under the award, calculating the amount due at Rs.87,200/- per cent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore state that without determining the actual amount due by the petitioner and taking into account the payment of Rs.7,21,96,848.31/- already paid/deposited by the petitioner, the petitioner should be given a fair opportunity to bring up the review and till such time, the order of attachment should be suspended.

4. Per contra, Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would state that the acquisition proceedings were initiated way back in the year 1999 and the land owners voluntarily surrendered their lands without any objection, on the fond hope that they would be adequately compensated at the then prevailing market rates. Learned Senior Counsel would also state that the Reference Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had fixed the compensation payable at Rs.1,00,000/- per cent, which was reduced to Rs.87,200/- per cent by the Division Bench of this Court. The learned Senior Counsel would also bring to my notice the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.2589 of 2023 dated 13.03.2023, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “Delay condoned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the deduction of 20% as made by the High Court is accepted, the amount ultimately quantified is not the correct figure. If that be so, the petitioner may approach the High court in that regard for clarification. With the said liberty, the special leave petition is disposed of.”

5. Relying on the above said order, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner cannot raise all these issues in the execution petition and only the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court could have been availed of by the petitioner and admittedly, till date, the petitioner has not been able to obtain any interim protection before the Division Bench of this Court. He would therefore state that the order passed by the Executing Court is neither improper nor perverse and does not warrant interference.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

7. In the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, confirming the compensation fixed by the Division Bench of this Court in the first appeal, I do not see any error committed by the Executing Court in ordering attachment when admittedly the amount due and payable by the petitioner has not been fully satisfied, in terms of the award.

8. Merely because the petitioner has deposited/paid a huge sum of Rs.7,21,96,848.31/-, it cannot be a ground to stall the execution proceedings, when admittedly further amounts are due and payable by the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, even the conditional order of Rs.30,00,000/- which was directed to be paid for interim stay in the revision has also not been paid. In the light of the above, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the order of attachment passed by the Executing Court in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the representation of Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner that the review is likely to be listed shortly, while dismissing the revision, I am inclined to direct the Executing Court to defer the order of attachment, for a period of two weeks from today, to enable the petitioner to move the Division Bench for suitable interim orders in the meantime. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 17.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA To

1. The VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Special Tahsildar (LA), SIPCOT, Irungattukottai Scheme, Sriperumbudur Taluk. CRP No.4290 of 2025 17.08.2026