IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20355 of 2010(O) -------------------------- LAR.20/1996 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.M.THOMAS,KUNNAMKOTTU, OLAMATTOM,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU PO., IDUKKI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20355 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : ORDER IN FAO NO. 256 OF 2006 EXHIBIT P2 : ORDER DTD. 13.11.2009 IN E.P.No.126 OF 2001 IN L.A.R.No.20 OF 1996 OF THE HONOURABLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THODUPUZHA RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy P.A to Judge THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.20355 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 26th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P2,order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thodupuzha on 13-11-2001 in E.P.No.126 of 2001 in L.A.R No.20 of 1996 is under challenge at the instance of petitioner. Grievance of petitioner is that he was not awarded interest from the date of sale (20-12-2004) till 18-08-2007 though a Division Bench of this court while disposing of F.A.O.No.256 of 2006 has allowed petitioner interest during the said period also. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Ext.P1, copy of judgment in F.A.O.No.256 of 2006. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent contends that amount calculated and arrived at by learned Sub Judge is correct and no interference is called for. 2. Amount is due to the petitioner as per an award in a land acquisition reference. This court in Ext.P1, judgment stated: “We agree that as far as the land acquisition amount is concerned in the E.P, the amount paid cannot be adjusted towards interest first. At the same time, the petitioner is also entitled for a reasonable W.P.C.No.20355 of 2010 : 2 : rate of interest on the amount which became due as on the date of sale. But, subsequently, the State has also deposited amounts. Therefore, we direct that after making lawful adjustment of the amounts deposited by the State on the relevant dates, the balance outstanding should fetch reasonable interest @ 8% on the amount due till the last pie is paid.” Going by the said direction of Division Bench petitioner is entitled to get interest on the amount which became due as on the date of sale (20-12-2004) onwards and of course, amount deposited by the respondent and withdrawn by petitioner has to be adjusted towards the principal amount due. It is seen from Ext.P2, order that from 20-12-2004 (date of sale) till 18-08-2007 no interest has been calculated on the principal amount due during that time (after adjusting the amount withdrawn by petitioner towards the principal). Learned counsel for petitioner is justified in his contention that interest calculated as per Ext.P2 is not in conformity of direction of the Division Bench in Ext.P1, judgment. Ext.P2, order cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. W.P.C.No.20355 of 2010 : 3 : Resultantly this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P2, order is set aside. Learned Sub Judge is directed to fix the amount due in the light of the direction contained in Ext.P1, judgment. Both sides can file statements in that regard in the court below. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-