IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 350 of 2009() -------------------------------- EP. 533/2007 IB LAR.NOL335/1988 OF THE IIIRD ADDL. SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. .............. REVN. PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------------- 1. SARAMMA KURIAKOSE , W/O.LATE SHRI KURIAKOSE, THEKKILAKKATTU, KOZHIPPILLY POST, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. BABU KURIAKOSE, S/O.LATE SHRI KURIAKOSE, THEKKILAKKATTU, MANNATHOOR POST, NAVOLIMATTOM. 3. JESSY JACOB, W/O.JACOB M.V., MELETH HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM POST. 4. VALSA JAMES W/O.MR.JAMES, MANJUMMALKUDIYIL, NEDUNGAPRA POST, KOTTAPADY. 5. SHERLY KURIAKOSE W/O.BABY P SCARIAH, PUTHUSSERY, IRINGOLE POST, PERUMBAVOOR. 6. BEENA THARIAN W/O.THARIAN, KOORAN HOUSE, KIDANGOOR NORTH, ANGAMALY POST. 7. JOHNSON KURIAKOSE S/O.LATE KURIAKOSE, THEKKILAKKATTU, KOZHIPPILLY POST, KOTHAMANGALAM. (PETITIONERS 2 TO 7 ARE REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SARAMMA KURIAKOSE IST PETITIONER. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 350 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010. ORDER In this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioners call in question the order in E.P.533 of 2007 in LAR 335 of 1988 dated 29.11.2008. 2. 74.96 Ares of land in Sy. No. 1233/4, 5 and 6-3 of Kothamangalam Village was acquired by the State. Award was passed and dissatisfied with the award, enhancement was sought for. Ultimately it was found that an amount of Rs.24,60,490/- was due to the claimant. That amount was deposited and the execution petition, E.P.88 of 2004, was closed. That amount was determined on the basis of the order of this court in C.R.P. 548 of 2006 dated 6.11.2006. 3. Thereafter the petitioner moved the court below claiming interest on solatium on the basis of the decision reported in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ((2006) 8 SCC 457). It appears that the court below in CRP.350/2009. 2 execution directed the parties to file their calculation statements regarding the amount due and the amount paid. Both the petitioners as well as the respondent filed their respective calculations. The court below on a scrutiny found that both of them are not acceptable and went on to make an independent calculation and came to the conclusion that an excess amount of Rs.18,59,132.10 has been paid. The said order is under challenge. 4. It is difficult to understood how the court below has arrived at the conclusion that an excess amount of Rs.18,59,32.10 has been paid. Obviously, the court below has not looked into the earlier order of this court and the order in E.P. 88 of 2004. The court below has erred in its approach in arriving at the conclusion as to the interest on solatium for which the petitioner is entitled to as found by the court below. The matter requires reconsideration. In the result, this revision petition is allowed, and the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for a fresh consideration in accordance CRP.350/2009. 3 with law and in the light of what has been stated in the judgment. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.