IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 360 of 2009() --------------------- E.P.NO.34/2006 IN LAR.410/1980 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDERS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.YESODA, PATTALEENTAVIDA HOUSE,PARAVANTHALA, NUT STREET, VADAKARA-4, VADAKARA TALUK. 2. P.LEELA, PUTHALATH HOUSE, PUTHUPPANAM, VADAKARA-5. 3. P.MAIDHIL, KAYYIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, VADAKARA. 4. P.LAKSHMANAN, MERCHANT, ONTHAM ROAD, VATAKARA. 5. P.BHASKARAN, PATTALEENTAVIDA HOUSE, PARAVANTHALA, NUT STREET, VADAKARA. 6. P.VIJESH, KAPPACHULLIYIL HOUSE, POST EDACHERI, VATAKARA TALUK. 7. SHYNA, W/O. VIJAYAN, KAPPACHULLIYIL HOUSE, POST EDACHERI, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.B.KRISHNAN, MR.PARTHASARATHY. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. REKHA C. NAIR R2 BY ADV. MR.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010 ALONG WITH CRP NO. 390 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... C.R.P.NOS.360 & 390 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010. O R D E R Both these revisions are preferred against the orders in E.P.No.340/2006 in L.A.R.No.410/1980 and in E.P.No.77/2006 in LAR.No.409/1980. The land acquisition court in both the cases had closed the EPs as if the entire amount is paid or deposited. Challenging that decisions, the claimants have come up in revisions in both the cases. The claimants in both the cases have filed a very detailed statement and in CRP.No.360/2009, according to the statement, the amount due is Rs.43,065.91 + cost and in CRP.No.390/2009 the balance, according to it, is Rs.68,259.20 + cost. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner very strongly contends before me that the executing court has erred in closing the EPs and it has attempted to adjust the principal amount first and the interest subsequently. They are all covered by the decisions of the apex court as well. 3.Therefore I direct the land acquisition court to : 2 : C.R.P.NOS.360 & 390 OF 2009 consider both these cases in the light of the statements filed by the claimants and also applying the rules and decisions which are on the point. Thereafter it may determine whether any amount is due or not. Needless to say that the authority who has to deposit the amount also is permitted to file statement and advance argument on the liability of the authority. Therefore the orders under challenge are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court for fresh consideration in the light of the statements as well as the statement to be filed by the authority and then apply the correct principles of law and decide the matter. It is made clear that both the parties are permitted to file fresh statements and then the matter be heard. Parties are directed to appear before the land acquisition court on 25.2.2010. Since the matter has completed 30 years now, endeavor shall be made by the execution court to dispose of the matter, before the court closes for summer holidays. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : C.R.P.NOS.360 & 390 OF 2009 : 4 : C.R.P.NOS.360 & 390 OF 2009