IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 103 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/06/2006 IN EP.739/97 IN LAR.11/1993 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LA RAILWAYS NO.11, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER --------------------------------------- 1. MEENAKSHI AMMA,D/O.MANGALATH KALIKUTTY AMMA, ELAVALLY VILLAGE,ELAVALLY DESOM.(DIED) ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS (L.Rs. OF R1) IMPLEADED : 2. SATHYANATHAN, S/O.MEENAKSHI AMMA, ELAVALLY VILLAGE,ELAVALLY DESOM. 3. NANDAKUMAR, S/O.MEENAKSHI AMMA, ELAVALLY VILLAGE,ELAVALLY DESOM. (ADDL.R2 AND R3 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.5.2011 IN I.A.2932/09 IN CRP 103/07) ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS FOR R2 & 3 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R2 & 3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON 16.11.2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. ----------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.103 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 16th November, 2011. O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondents in E.P.739/97 in L.A.R.11/93 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. 2. The case of the revision petitioners is briefly as follows :An extent of 0.0027 hectares in R.S.24/7 - 11C and 0.0677 hectares in R.S.24/8A - 12(b) of Elavally Village was acquired for the construction of Railway line between Thrissur and Guruvayur. Notification was issued on 26.12.1988. Possession was taken on 8.5.89 and that of structure on 30.10.1990. Award was passed on 16.5.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.2,145/- per cent as land value, Rs.12,780/- for value of 4 coconut trees and deducted land value for 4 cents in lieu of that and awarded Rs.1,22,625/- as value of structures. 3. The reference court enhanced the land value at the rate of Rs.5,355/- per cent for 13.39 cents and Rs.7,500/- per cent for 4 cents and Rs.13,143/- for improvements and Rs.2,52,146/- for structures. The statutory benefits on CRP 103/07 2 additional land value was also allowed. 4. The claimant filed E.P.739/97 for realization of an amount of Rs.12,89,530.31. The judgment debtor filed objection against the E.P. claim. Thereafter, the decree holder submitted calculation statement for Rs.6,84,718. By the order dated 15.6.06 the learned Sub Judge fixed the liability at Rs.6,84,718.36. The court directed to deposit the balance amount after deducting the income tax. Against that order, the judgment debtors filed this Revision Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the court below ought to have calculated the amount on the basis of the principles laid down in the decision reported in Sunder v. Union of India [2001(3) KLT 489 (SC)]. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that calculating on that basis, the amount due to the decree holder is Rs.5,90,959/- and instead of that amount, the judgment debtors deposited Rs.6,86,878/- on 17.9.1998 and as such, judgment debtors CRP 103/07 3 have deposited an excess amount of Rs.95,919/-. Learned counsel for the decree holder supported the order under challenge. 6. Since the amount fixed by the court below is disputed by the judgment debtors, I am of the view that the case has to be remanded back to the court below for re- assessing the amount due to the decree holder. Accordingly, this C.R.P. is allowed and the order in E.P.739/97 in L.A.R.11/93 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur is set aside and that E.P. is remanded to that court for the purpose of re- calculation of the amount due to the decree holder. Both parties are directed to file fresh statements before the court below within two months from this date. The court below is directed to dispose of the E.P. in accordance with law. Registry shall send back the records to the court below as early as possible. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy) P.S. to Judge.