IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 31 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2007 IN EP.78/01 IN LAR.1/1991 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: LEGAL HEIRS OF DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------- 1. THAMPI JACOB, S/O.LATE V.A.JACOB, VATTATHARA HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI, KOCHI-5. 2. LESLIE JACOB, S/O.LATE V.A.JACOB, DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: JUDGMENT DEBTORS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-20. 2. THE SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SC,GCDA - R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 31 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kochi in E.P.78/01 in LAR 1/91 whereby the Court below held that an amount of Rs.2,12,103 is in excess deposit before the Court. The revision petitioner who is the claimant would contend it is not correct and as per his statement he is entitled to an amount of rupees more than Rs.16 lakhs. The points to be considered are; (1) How income tax reduction is to be done. (2) How the amount of interest is to be calculated and what is the principle to be applied regarding the appropriation and (3) Also the question regarding the entitlement of interest from which specified date. 2. So far as the income tax deduction is concerned it is true that acquisition officer is entitled to deduct the income CRP NO. 31 of 2008 -:2:- tax at source. But if the claimant has already paid tax to the Government on this amount also as income tax then the question of deduction does not arise. This matter have to be verified, clarified and a decision has to be taken. 3. So far as appropriation of the amount is concerned the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457) has to be considered. Applying the dictum laid down therein the figure has to be arrived at and thereafter the balance amount or the excess amount due is to be found out. So far as the interest aspect is concerned with reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India (AIR 2001 SC 3516) which had been clarified by the Court in 2006 (8) SCC 457, a calculation has to be done following the dictum laid therein as well. So after taking into consideration these three aspects and any other aspect which is pointed out by either side the Court may arrive at a decision regarding the correctness of the amount to be deposited or to be reimbursed and pass CRP NO. 31 of 2008 -:3:- appropriate orders accordingly. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below and the parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 26.5.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-