IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27191 of 2009(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.G.PRABHATH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, `GURUKRIPA', UNICHIRA, CHANGAPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-33. BY ADV. MR.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED FISHERIES PROJECT, COCHIN, OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES, COCHIN-16. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.27191 of 2009-T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is one among the claimants in a bunch of LARs disposed of by the Reference Court as per Ext.P1 judgment. This Court, as per Ext.P2, modified that award reducing the land value. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he and the other co-claimants became liable for restitution to the judgment debtor. It appears that claimants had carried the matter by way of appeal to the Apex Court. After the dismissal of that appeal, it appears that the counsel, who was appearing for the claimants before this Court earlier, had issued a notice intimating the parties to carry out the restitution obviously, because interest was growing. The petitioner wants an order permitting him to deposit his WPC27191/09 -: 2 :- share of the amount to be paid by way of restitution. This, I think, may only create more confusion. This is because, the different claimants were not granted amounts after clear cut decision as to the apportionment of the compensation. This is so stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner on query by this Court. Obviously, therefore, the proper course is to move the appropriate court empowered to execute the decree by the Reference Court and voluntarily make deposits by filing appropriate execution petition or execution application and seek discharge and satisfaction of the decree. Such an issue would fall within the parameters of Section 47 CPC. It may be inadvisable for the writ court to step in to such questions which, obviously, would ultimately require settling the accounts between the judgment debtor and decree holder as regards restitution. Without prejudice to the petitioner's right to move the competent executing court in the light WPC27191/09 -: 3 :- of what is stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/031009