IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 2345 of 2000(H) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/01/2000 IN EA.94/1998 IN LAR.294/1974 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT: 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION,KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS 1 TO 9: 1. P.A.ACHUTHAN, CONTRACTOR, MALAPARAMBA, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE (DIED/LRS IMPLEADED) 2. P.A.LEELA, OF -DO- 3. P.A.PREMKUMAR OF -DO- 4. P.A.NALINAKSHAN, OF -DO- 5. P.A.MANOHARAN OF -DO- 6. P.A.SATHEESAN OF -DO- 7. P.A.SURESH (MINOR) 8. P.A.GIRISH (MINOR) 9. P.A.ANILKUMAR (MINOR) (MINORS 7 TO 9 REPRESENTED BY FATHER FIRST RESPONDENT) RESPONDENTS 3 TO 9 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER DATED 21.1.2008 ON C.M.P.NO.852 OF 2001. ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN FOR R3 TO 6 SMT.PRABHA R.MENON FOR R3 TO R6 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R3 TO R6,8,9 SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R3 TO R6,8,9 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R3 TO R6,8,9 SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R8,9 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NO. 2345 OF 2000 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 O R D E R The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kozhikode has filed this Revision challenging the order passed by the court below dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration and also against the dismissal of the application for restoration of an application filed under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Execution Petition filed by the respondent. 2. An extent of 0.466 hectres of land belonging to the predecessor in interest of the respondents was acquired by the State. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, a reference was made at the request of the respondents as L.A.R.No. 294 of 1974. The reference court disposed of L.A.R. No.294 of 1974 on 20.12.1976 fixing the land value at Rs. 2500/- per cent. The State filed L.A.A.No 251 of 1977 challenging the award passed by the reference court. The appeal was disposed of on 15.04.1981 reducing the land value from Rs.2500/- to Rs.750/- per cent. As per an interim order passed in the L.A.A., the State had deposited a sum of Rs.1,56,904.42/- being 50% of the amount awarded. The predecessor in interest of the respondents have withdrawn that amount. C.R.P. NO.2345 OF 2000 :: 2 :: 3. After the disposal of the Land Acquisition Appeal, the State filed E.A.No. 475 of 1984 before the Executing Court for realization of Rs.98727/- from the respondents by way of restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. E.A.No. 475 of 1984 was allowed on 28.11.1990 . The respondents filed E.A.No.18 of 1991 to review the order dated 28.11.1990. The Review Petition was dismissed on 26.09.1991. The respondents challenged the order in E.A.No. 18 of 1991 before the High Court in C.R.P.No. 378 of 1992. The said Revision was disposed of on 02.04.1996 directing the court below to consider the matter afresh. In E.A.No. 475 of 1984, the respondents had claimed that they are entitled to value of improvements. Though the State did not claim any interest for the amount sought to be recovered by way of restitution, while allowing E.A.No. 475 of 1984, the court below awarded interest at 4% per annum. This was mainly challenged by way of review in E.A.No. 18 of 1991. This Court, while disposing of the Civil Revision Petition No.378 of 1992 held that the court below did not consider the rival claims put forward by the parties. It was felt that a re-consideration of the matter is necessary. Both the parties were directed to file detailed statement of accounts. The court below was directed to consider the question as to whether interest could be granted when restitution is allowed, even without a prayer for granting interest. 4. Thereafter, on 30.05.1997 E.A.No.475 of 1984 was dismissed for non-prosecution. The State filed .E.A.No. 95 of 1998 for restoration. Since there was delay of 245 days in filing the application for restoration, E.A.No.94 of 1998 was filed for condonation of delay. The court below dismissed both the C.R.P. NO.2345 OF 2000 :: 3 :: applications. by order dated 18.01.2000, which is under challenge in this Revision. The only reason stated by the court below for dismissal of the application E.A.NO. 94 of 1998 is that the petition is highly belated. The order reads as follows: “This petition is highly belated. Hence it is dismissed.” 5. The order passed by the court below is cryptic. It does not show any reason for dismissal. The contentions put forward by the parties were not considered. The learned Government Pleader contended that in fact there was no dispute that excess amount was realised by the respondent. It is contended that therefore the court below was not justified in dismissing E.A.No.475 of 1984. It is contended that even without any application for restoration, the court could correct the mistake. In the facts and circumstances, the orders impugned are set aside. The court below shall consider the applications afresh. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk/ahz K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 2345 OF 2000 O R D E R 2nd April, 2008 -------------------------------------------