IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 1827 of 2003(F) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/05/2003 IN EP. 356 /1998 IN LAR.173/1982 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 2ND JUDGEMENT DEBTOR -------------------------------------- M/S. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. PHENOL PROJECT, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 16, NOW SHIFTED TO AMBALAMUGAL - 682 302. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SMT.AMRITA JAYARAM SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER AND IST JUDGEMENT DEBTOR --------------------------------------------------- 1. BABY JOSEPH, PUNNASSERY, KODINJOOR. 2. MARIAMMA JOSEPH, PUNNASSERY, KODINJOOR. 3. ALIAMMA JOSEPH, PUNNASSERY, KODINJOOR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 36. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R4 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1763 OF 2003 IN C.R.P NO. 1827 OF 2003 DISMISSED 30.05.2008 SD/-HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P No. 1827 of 2003 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May 2008 ORDER The revision petitioner is the requisitioning authority in the Land Acquisition case numbered as L.A.R. 173/1982 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam The revision petitioner is the 2nd judgment debtor in E.P. 356/1988 in L.A.R. 173/1982. The revision petitioner submitted that the decree holders/ respondents 1 to 3 have filed E.P. 151/1988 which was dismissed on 16.7.1988 on depositing Rs. 1,89,028/- by the petitioner and the second E.P No. 1353/1991 again the petitioner deposited Rs. 98,485/- as against the claim of Rs. 2, 23, 994.50. The said amount was paid by the revision petitioner and the execution petition was dismissed on 14.12.1993. The present E.P was filed as E.P. 356/1998 claiming a further amount of Rs. 3,08,591.36/- as still due to the respondents as per the decree. The petitioner filed a calculation statement as per which the balance amount shown as Rs.41,487/- only. Based on the calculation made by the petitioner he deposited the said amount on 8.10.2002. 2. The trial court appointed one its staff as auditor to work out the actual amount due. The auditor reported that the amount due after crediting all the deposits is Rs. 6,49,864.12 The petitioner filed objection to the method worked out by the auditor which according to the petitioner C.R.P No. 1827 of 2003 -2- is against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Premnath Kaur Vs. National Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd 1996 (2) SCC 71 and subsequent decisions of this Court. They have also a case that the auditor has included the amounts which are not claimed in the execution petition. According to the petitioner, the court below without applying its mind simply followed the auditor's report and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 6,49,864. 12 Ps. 3. This court reported in State of Kerala Vs. Mariamma 2005 (2) KLT 587 considered that “the law regarding adjustment of the decree amount deposited by the State in execution of a decree passed in a land acquisition reference is clear and settled. The decree holder shall calculate the various amounts due to him under Sections 23(1), 23(1-A) 23 (2) and 28 of the Act.” This was described in detail at pages 603 and 604 of the above said decision This Court listed the priority to be followed in adjusting the amount deposited. In the recent decision rendered by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme court reported in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India 2008 (1) KLJ 463 the principles regarding the rule of appropriation and as to how the sum deposited is to be applied, is considered in detail in paragraph 53 of the said decision. This Court also followed the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the earlier C.R.P No. 1827 of 2003 -3- decision reported in Premnath Kapur's case (Supra). In the light of the well settled decisions regarding appropriation rendered by this court and the Supreme Court, this matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the execution Court. The trial court shall call upon the parties to file calculation statement based on the principles settled by the Supreme Court and this Court, in the aforesaid decisions . The trial shall decide the matter afresh following the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions. The counsel for the revision petitioner drew my attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 29.5.2001 in C.R.P 784/1998 wherein it is held that the closing of earlier execution petition on the basis that the amount claimed by the decree holders had been deposited amounts to recording satisfaction of the decree. In the result, this Civil Revision petition is disposed of as above. The order under revision is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es