IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 728 of 2007(N) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/05/2006 IN EP. 527 /2002 IN LAR.1138/1988 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE, (NOW CALLED COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE), KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. OMANA JACOB ALEXANDER, W/O. P.T.ALEXANDER, KRIPA BHAVAN, KAWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRITHI JACOB ALEXANDER, KRIPA BHAVAN, KAWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NIDHU JACOB ALEXANDER, KRIPA BHAVAN, KAWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.K.L.SREEDEVI FOR R1 TO 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.SHYSON.P.MANGUZHA FOR R4 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.728 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April 2010 ORDER The 2nd judgment debtor, the requisitioning authority, in whose favour the land involved was acquired has filed the above revision challenging the order of the execution court closing the execution proceedings negativing its case that excess amount had been collected by the decree holder by initiating proceedings against a garnishee for realisation of the decree debt. The execution court, it is seen, without adverting to the merit of the case canvassed by the revision petitioner has closed the execution proceedings opining that the deposit made by the garnishee is in tune with the computation over subsequent interest as per the decree. There is nothing more in the order to indicate that a proper calculation with reference to the actual amount due to the decree holder having regard to the releases made earlier on the deposit made by the decree holder was examined by the court before passing an order for closing the execution proceedings. Both sides have filed statements before this court to substantiate their respective case as to the actual amount payable under the decree. Having regard to the statements filed and also the submissions made, it is found that a further enquiry by the execution court with respect to the C.R.P No.728 OF 2007 Page numbers question as to what exactly is the amount due, if any, and also whether any excess amount had been collected by proceeding against the garnishee by the decree holder is necessary to advance the ends of justice. Setting aside the impugned order I direct the execution court to take back the execution petition on file, consider the objections raised by the decree holder on its merits and pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner wanted this court to issue some guidelines to the court below in the quantification of the amount due under the decree with reference to the claim of interest on solatium and also appropriation to be made on the deposit made before the court. I find that no such guidelines need be issued as the execution court has to follow the principles laid down in “Gurpreet Singh v Union of India” (2008(1) KLJ (SC) 463) which gives sufficient insight in the manner in which appropriation and also quantification are to be made in pending executions on decrees passed in land acquisition proceedings. Subject to the above observations, the revison is disposed of. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE