IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2007 / 7TH ASHADHA 1929 CRP.No. 843 of 2004 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/05/03 IN EP 29/2000 IN LAR.16/1998 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER: ------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN RESPONDENT: ------------- S.SHAHIDHA, KARAKKOTTUKUNNINPURATHU VEEDU, THELDUMKARA MURI, NEDUMANGADU. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.2006/04 IN C.R.P.843/04 DISMISSED 28.6.2007 SD/-PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. .......................................................... C.R.P.No.843 OF 2004 ........................................................... DATED THIS THE 28TH JUNE, 2007 O R D E R There is no appearance for the respondent-decree-holder even though she has been served with notice. 2. The C.R.P. is directed against an order of the execution court executing a decree in a land acquisition case directing the judgment- debtor-State to deposit further amounts. I am of the view that having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 489) and still later judgment in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457], the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the execution court. The impugned order is set aside and the execution court is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter in the light of the decisions referred to above, after hearing both sides. The C.R.P. is allowed as above. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) tgl WP(C)N0. -2- WP(C)N0. -3-