IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 933 of 2008(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ V.G.THULASEENADHAN,VELLAPPALLY VEEDU, PULIYANNOOR VILALGE, PULIYANNOOR KARA KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R.BINDHU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.933 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Sub Court, Pala in E.P.No.6/2003 in LAR No.38 of 1997. By the said order, the court below fixed the amount due as Rs.1,54,783/- and gave a direction to the Government to deposit the same within one month from 14.8.2007. It is against that decision, the present writ petition is preferred. 2. A perusal of the extraction of the award of the court in paragraph 3 would reveal that the claimant was granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the damages sustained land at the time of the Land Acquisition Officer's taking possession of the land. Learned counsel would contend that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India(2001(7) SCC 211) all the statutory benefits are due for that amount also which has not been considered by the court below. Then it is submitted that when an amount of Rs.60,276/- was deposited as directed by the court, which was adjusted towards the principal amount which according to the learned counsel, in the light of the decision reported in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of WP(C) 933/2008 -:2:- India(2006(8) SCC 457) is incorrect and it should have been appropriated towards interest which is the general principle followed. These two points require consideration at the hands of the court below to arrive at a figure. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the court below and direct the executing court to consider these two points in the light of the decisions referred to above. The Government Pleader is also permitted to bring any other decision on the point in support of the State's contention and the court after hearing both sides shall pass an order, fix the amount and direct the Government to deposit the same in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 18.2.2008. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-