IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 563 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/02/2008 IN EA61/06,EP 53/2004 IN LAR.6/1991 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS/CLAIMANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PARAVARKANDY ABDULLA, S/O. AMMAD, AGED 60, AGRICULTURISTS, THIRUVALLOOR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O THIRUVALLOOR, BADAGARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 2. PARAVARKANDY MOIDU, S/O. AMMAD, AGED 58, THIRUVALLOOR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O THIRUVALLOOR, BADAGARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, P.O. QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K.T.LILLY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9/12/2011, THE COURT ON 14/12/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No.563 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is filed by the respondents/claimants in E.A.No.61 of 2006 in E.P. No.53 of 2004 in L.A.R. No.6 of 1991 on the file of Sub Court, Quilandy. 2. The facts of the case as stated in the revision petition is briefly as follows. The land of the petitioners are acquired by the respondents and compensation was awarded as per award No.2 of 1990 dated 11.1.1990. Dissatisfied with the compensation, petition was filed and the matter was referred to Sub Court, Quilandy as L.A.R. No.6/91 from wherein compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per cent. On appeal filed by the petitioners before this Court as L.A.A. No.269 of 1993, compensation was C.R.P. No.563 of 2008 --: 2 :-- enhanced and fixed as Rs.4,000/- per cent. On the basis of the decree, E.P. No.65 of 1997 was filed for getting the amount decreed. The respondent filed E.A. No.228 of 1999, in the E.P. for a direction to the petitioner to re-deposit the amount stated to have seen excessively paid. 3. The execution Court dismissed the E.P. and allowed E.A. No.228 of 1999 against which, the petitioners filed C.R.P. No.2336 of 2003 before this Court. In the C.R.P, this Court set aside the orders of the execution Court, remanded the case directing the execution Court to calculate the amount including interest on solatiom. The execution Court after hearing dismissed the E.A. No.228 of 1999 filed by the respondent. The dismissed E.P. was revived by the execution as E.P. No.53 of 2004. On the basis of the direction by the execution Court, the petitioners and respondents filed calculation statement as to the due amount. The respondent filed E.A. No.61 of 2006 for a direction to re-deposit the excess amount stated to have been paid. By way of order dated 18.3.2006 C.R.P. No.563 of 2008 --: 3 :-- in E.A. No.61 of 2006 the execution Court directed the petitioner to re-deposit the amount as claimed by the petitioner and dismissed the E.P. Hence the petitioner filed C.R.P. No.969 of 2006 before this Court, which was allowed so as to remand the matter to Court below for fresh disposal. 4. The learned Sub Judge on considering the statements filed by both sides found that a sum of Rs.22,808.78 was paid in excess to the decree holders and the decree holders were liable to re- deposit the said amount and the decree holders were directed to re- deposit the same within one month. Against that order this C.R.P. is filed by the decree holders. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The respondent filed a statement in which it is stated that when the amount is calculated in accordance with the judgment in L.A.A. No.269 of 1993, the decree holder is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,23,201/- only, whereas the State has deposited an amount of Rs.1,23791/- in the stage of reference itself, which is evidenced C.R.P. No.563 of 2008 --: 4 :-- from the calculation statement. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner filed a statement to the effect that as per the decree in L.A.R.No.6 of 1991 dated 26.10.1992 the total amount due to the decree holders as on 2.3.1993 was Rs.1,30,179.72 and the amount deposited by the judgment debtor on 3.3.1993 was Rs.1,23,791/- and the balance amount as on 3.3.1993 was Rs.6,388.72. In the statement filed by the revision petitioners, it is stated that as per the calculation statement as per the decree in L.A.A. No.269 of 1993 dated 9.1.1997 the amount due to the decree holders is Rs.3,11,952.22. Since there is a huge difference in the statement filed by both the sides, I am of the view that the order in E.A. No.61 of 2006 has to be set aside and the Sub Court, Quilandy is to be directed to re-consider the matter afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to both the sides to file fresh statement. Accordingly this C.R.P. is allowed and the order in E.A. No.61 of 2006 dated 13.2.2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sub Court, Quilandy for fresh disposal in C.R.P. No.563 of 2008 --: 5 :-- accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity to both the sides to file fresh statement showing the amount due under the E.P. There is no order as to costs. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/