IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 657 of 2004() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/03/2003 IN EP 187/1992 IN LAR.431/1982 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER/ADDL.DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PERUMPILLIL HOUSE, ALAKODE, THODUPUZHA (DIED). 2. SANKARA PILLAI BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PERUMPILLIL HOUSE, ALAKODE, THODUPUZHA. *3. K.L.THANKAMMA, W/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PERUMPILLIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA.(DIED) (*RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT 3 VIDE ORDER DATED 06/12/07 IN MEMO BEARING NO.3850/07) 4. P.B.SAROJINI, D/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PUTHUVEETTIL, VADAKKUMMURI. 5. P.B.AMMINI, D/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PALACKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. 6. P.B.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PERUMPILLIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. 7. P.B.SARALA, D/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PULLAPPILLIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMMURI, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU R3, R4, R6 & R7 BY SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- C.R.P. No. 657 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha in E.P.No.187/92 in L.A.R.No.431/82, by which the court ordered for further steps after effecting the attachment. It is submitted by both sides that pursuant to the same, stay order has been withdrawn by the court for the reason that the judgment debtor has deposited the amount. It is also submitted that the decree holder has also withdrawn the amount. Now, what is to be considered is the correctness of the amount due to the decree holder under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel for the decree holder submits before me that the main question is regarding the appropriation of the amount and he would submit that it is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in 2006(8) SCC 457. There are large number of decisions on the subject including the decision in Sundar Vs. Union of India , reported in AIR 2001 SC 3516 and subsequent clarification of Sundar's case. All these matters have to be taken note of and considered, to fix the correctness of the amount. Therefore, I direct C.R.P. 657/2004 -2- the court below to restore E.P.187/92, permit both sides to file detailed statement showing the correctness of the amount, which according to them is due, thereafter hear both on the correctness of the amount and after applying the various decisions and the statutory provisions, fix the amount and pass consequential orders, i.e. if excess amount is disbursed to reimburse the excess amount and if only deficit amount is paid to pay the balance amount. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 25/02/2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of as above. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg