IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 1062 of 2007() ---------------------- E.P.27/98 IN LAR.28/1989 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGEMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY. RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDERS ----------------------------- 1. VARKEY, THEKKE VADASSERIL, MANNANAM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 2. ALEYAMMA VARKEY, THEKKE VADASSERIL, MANNANAM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON 16/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.1062 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 16th December, 2011. O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in E.P.27/98 in LAR No.28/89 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. The averments in the revision petition are as follows: The revision petitioner is the respondent in E.P.27/98. The claimants in LAR 28/89 are the respondents herein. An extent of 23.07 ares of land in Sy.No.787/5-1 of Athirampuzha Village of Kottayam Taluk was acquired for the purpose of setting up campus for M.G.University, Kottayam. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 21.5.1985 and an award was passed by fixing the land value at Rs.6,793/- per Are. Aggrieved by the award, the matter was referred to the Sub Court, Kottayam. The court allowed enhancement of Rs.4,850/- per Are. No appeal was filed against the judgment in LAR No.28/89. The entire decree amount was deposited before the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam by the petitioner herein. The decree holder/respondents herein filed Execution Petition as E.P.No.27/98 before the same court and they also filed a balance statement showing that there is a balance amount of Rs.7,60,970/-. The petitioner herein filed an objection before Civil Revision Petition 1062/07 2 the execution court showing the irregularity in the calculation made by the decree holder. A separate calculation statement was also filed by the petitioner herein. Disregarding the irregularities in calculation made by the decree holder in the calculation statement, the execution court directed the State/petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3,20,974/- for payment to the respondents herein. Against the order in E.P.No.27/98, the State/judgment debtor filed this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. At the time of argument, learned Government Pleader raised the following contentions :The calculation of 12% additional land value by the decree holders is wrong and only 24,942/- is liable to be paid to them. The court below ought to have held that the decree holders have calculated 9% and 15% interest on the enhanced land value, 12% additional land value and 30% solatium, which is legally unsustainable. The court below ought to have held that by the calculation statement, the decree holders have calculated compound interest and the Civil Revision Petition 1062/07 3 same is not allowed as per the decree and hence, the execution court cannot grant the same. The court below failed to note the fact that in the calculation statement filed by the decree holders, the amount deposited by this petitioner was not deducted. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the order under challenge. 4. On perusing the order under challenge, it is seen that the execution court has not properly considered the contentions raised by the judgment debtor. Therefore, I am of the view that in the interests of justice, the matter has to be remanded back to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order in E.P.No.27/98 in LAR 28/89 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottyam is set aside and the matter is remanded back to that court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides to file fresh statements. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs