IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2007 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1929 CRP.No. 556 of 2004() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2003 IN EP 22/1998 IN LAR.1626/1988 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER/CLAIMANT --------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT,BHARGAVI(DIED). 2. C.S.SHANMUGHAN, PATTATH HOUSE, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O. COCHIN 28, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. C.S.GOPINATHAN, PATTATH HOUSE, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O. COCHIN 28, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A.) COCHIN OIL TANKAGE COMPLEX, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BHARATH BHAVAN, 4 AND 6 CURRIMBHOY, ROAD MUMBAI AND HAVING PRESENT OFFICE AT VYTTILA. KOCHI - 19. R2 SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE R1 BY SHRI P.K. BABU GOVERNMENT PLEADER & ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2007, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 557 OF 2004 & 379/2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kurian Joseph & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.NOS.556 & 557/2004 & 379/2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2007 O R D E R Kurian Joseph, J. These Civil Revision Petitions were happened to be placed before us in view of the reference order dated 16.5.2005 of a learned Single Judge of this court. The point referred is ”what is the mode of appropriation to be followed when part payments are made towards land acquisition decree debts. “ That question is squarely answered by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ((2006) 8 SCC 457). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that there are other disputed questions as well which require examination in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 489) and the decision in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra). We do not think that this court should go into those factual disputes which require verification on the basis of records which is more practicable at the hands of the execution court. Therefore, we do not propose to go into the various contentions including the contention taken by the requisitioning authority that the entire amounts due have already been deposited since those are questions to be CRP 556 & 557/04 & 379/05 -2- considered by the execution court in the light of the decisions referred to above. Therefore, the revision petitions are disposed of setting aside the orders sought to be revised and remanding the matters to the execution court to be considered in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above. The parties will appear before the execution court on 4.7.2007 and the applications will be disposed of within another four months. (Kurian Joseph, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/