IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1399 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.MUKUNDAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHELLAMMA PILLAI, KIZHAKKE PULIYILATHARA HOUSE, VALLUVEETTUMURI, KAVADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1399 of 2010 (Y) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T An extent of 9.22 ares of land in survey Nos.3419/2 and 3419/4 of Kowdiar Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk was acquired as per LAC No.15/1993 for the expansion of Museum and Zoo in Thiruvananthapuram. In the acquisition proceedings one Smt.Chellamma Pillai and 9 others appeared and claimed compensation for 6.38 ares of land as interested parties. Compensation for the remaining 2.84 ares was claimed by Smt.Subhadra and her children. Though the claimants received compensation awarded, references were made at their instance under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the claim of Smt.Chellamma Pillai and her children was registered as LAR No. 35/95, and the claim of Smt.Subhadra and her children was registered as LAR No.389/94. 2. From the statement filed by the learned Government Pleader, it would appear that the Sub Court as per its judgment dated 30/11/1996 disposed of LAR No.389/94 directing payment WP(C) No.1399/2010 -2- of enhanced compensation and solatium. The net additional compensation payable was quantified at Rs.9,25,225/-. It is stated that although the subject matter of the reference was only 2.84 ares, the decree in LAR No.389/94 covered the entire 9.22 ares. Compensation awarded for the total extent was deposited on 17/09/1998. It is stated that the entire amount was withdrawn by the claimants in LAR No.389/94. 3. In so far as LAR No.35/95 is concerned, on 30/10/1999, judgment in the LAR was rendered by the Sub Court again awarding a lessor enhanced compensation again for the entire extent of 9.22 ares of land along with other benefits. The additional compensation was quantified at Rs.4,59,120/-. It is stated that in this decree also compensation was awarded for the entire 9.22 ares, while the claim was only in respect of 6.38 ares. When the petitioner and others sought recovery of the amount in the Execution Petition filed, they were informed that the amount was deposited by mistake in LAR No.389/94. However, when the cheque application was filed, he has been informed that no amount was available in deposit to LAR No. 389/94 and accordingly the cheque application was dismissed. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. WP(C) No.1399/2010 -3- 4. While according to the petitioner, he and the other claimants are entitled to be awarded compensation for 6.38 ares, which according to him is the extent of land acquired from them, the learned Government Pleader submits that the whole controversy has arisen out of a mistake committed by the Sub Court, in as much as in both cases, compensation was awarded for the same extent of land and that too adopting different standards. It is stated that therefore, they have filed an application before the Sub Court for correction of the judgment and decree and for recovery of the excess amount received by the claimants in LAR No.389/94 by restitution. It is also stated that they have applied to the Court for keeping the decree in LAR No.35/95 in abeyance until the aforesaid correction process is completed. 5. From the facts pointed out by both sides, it appears that there occurred a mistake in the decrees passed. But however, respondents cannot wriggle out of from their responsibility also in as much as when judgment was rendered in LAR No.389/94 and amount was deposited on 17/09/1998, they ought to have realized the mistake and sought appropriate correction. This has not been done in this case. WP(C) No.1399/2010 -4- 6. Be that as it may, now that application for correction has been made and the same is pending before the Sub Court, it is for that Court to deal with the said application. However, fact remains that 6.38 ares of land was acquired from the petitioner, and if that be so, the compensation due to the aforesaid extent of land is liable to be disbursed to the claimants in LAR No.35/95, since they are in no way responsible for the mistake committed. Therefore, they should be paid what is due to them. In view of the above facts, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. It will be open to the respondents to pursue the application for correction, which they claim to have already filed before the Sub Court, and it will be open to the Sub Court to pass appropriate orders in the matter. However, the claim of the petitioner for eligible compensation shall be satisfied by paying the amount either by recovering the same from the claimants in LAR No.389/94 or otherwise, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg