IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 1817 of 1999(C) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/02/1999 IN EP 211/96 IN LAR.289/1985 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/CLAIMANT: -------------------------------------------------------- OUSEPH THOMAS, NEYYARAPPALLIL, CHERTHALA, VADAKKUM MURI. ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON 26/08/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No. 1817 of 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the respondent/State in E.P.No.211 of 1996 in L.A.R.No. 289 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows. L.A.R. No. 289 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala was a reference under the Land Acquisition Act against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer dt.4.7.1980, in respect of an acquisition of an extent of 36.01 Ares of land situated in Mararikulam North Village for the Steel Industries Kerala Ltd. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.494/- per Are, which was enhanced and re-fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.2,500/- per Are by judgment dt. 15.11.1989. The Reference Court C.R.P.No. 1817 of 1999 2 also granted the benefits under Section 23(1A) of the amended Act, for which the claimant is not entitled to. 3. The Requisitioning Authority, Steel Industries Kerala Ltd., filed Acquisition Appeal No.357 of 1990, which was allowed by judgment dt. 18.11.1996, reducing the land value from Rs.2,500/- per Are to Rs.1,800/- per Are. The benefit granted under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition amended Act was also deleted. The decree was also modified to the extent of limiting statutory interest on the enhanced compensation also. 4. Meanwhile, the respondent/claimant proceeded with E.P.No.211 of 1996 for the decretal amount as per the original judgment of the Reference Court and by order dt.16.2.1999, the Sub Court, Cherthala directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.64,904.51 with interest at the rate of 15% for the subsequent period. Against that order, the revision petitioner/State filed this revision petition. C.R.P.No. 1817 of 1999 3 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the Execution Court has not taken into consideration the judgment of this Court in L.A.ANo. 357 of 1990 and that the Execution Court has ordered to deposit the amount as per the original decree. The learned counsel further submitted that the enhanced land value taken by the Execution Court is Rs.72,236.06, whereas in appeal the land value stands reduced and the actual enhanced land value is Rs.47,029.06. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the execution Court ought to have held that as per the appellate decree the decree holder is entitled to an amount of Rs.47,029.06 plus 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced land value for one year from 16.12.1981 and thereafter at the rate of 15% till payment. On going through the order under challenge, I am of the view that there is some substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the C.R.P.No. 1817 of 1999 4 petitioner. Since the entire records are before the Execution Court, I am of the view that in the interests of justice the order under challenge has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded back for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 7. This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The order in E.P. No.211 of 1996 in L.A.R.No. 289 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sub Court, Cherthala for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides to file fresh statement with regard to the amounts due to the claimant. There is no order as to cost. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm