IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 FAO.No. 256 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/12/2005 IN EP. 126 /2001 IN LAR.20/1996 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.LAKSHMI NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ----------------------------- K.M.THOMAS, S/O. LATE MATHEW, KUNNAMKOTTU (H), OLAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DEIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- FAO 256 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd July 2009 Judgment RAMAN, J. This is an appeal arising out of an order dated 8.12.2005 in EP No.126/001 in LAR No.20/96 at the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. The State is the appellant. By the impugned order, the application filed by the appellant to set aside an order of confirmation of sale was dismissed. True, that consequent upon the non-deposit of the EP amount, the property belonging to the State was put in auction and purchased by the decree holder himself. An application filed under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC was dismissed and on the same day, the sale was confirmed. The appellant, instead of challenging that order before this court, chose to file another application to set aside the order of confirmation and the court below rightly dismissed the same. We, in such circumstances would not have normally interfered with the matter, But, the decree holder himself fairly submitted before this court that he was more concerned about the FAO 256/06 2 compensation payable to him and if the entire amount payable to him is paid, he is agreeable to set aside the order of confirmation of sale. 2. We have heard the parties. Admittedly, the property belonging to the Government has been sold for non-payment of the EP amount. The property originally belonged to the respondent which was acquired by the Government, so, it is bound to pay the legal compensation awarded. The compensation was awarded and enhancement granted, but it remained unpaid. Therefore, while the interest of the respondent is only to get the compensation amount, that need not necessarily result in unlawful enrichment also. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order, however on the following conditions : (1) A statement has been filed by the State showing that an amount of Rs.4,18,347.60 alone was due and payable as on 15.7.2006 which has since been paid later as per challan produced and there is no balance to be paid. As per the statement produced by the respondent, an amount of FAO 256/06 3 Rs.9,94,612/- is due as on 31.03.2007. However, he has not credited the amount subsequently paid as per challan for Rs.4,18,347/-. Therefore, if that amount is deducted, the balance amount as on 31.03.2007 comes to Rs.5,76,265/-. But the State has got a contention that he has adjusted the amount of interest as against the amount earlier deposited which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. We agree that as far as the land acquisition amount is concerned in the EP, the amount paid cannot be adjusted towards interest first. At the same time, the petitioner is also entitled for a reasonable rate of interest on the amount which became due as on the date of sale. But, subsequently, the State has also deposited amounts. Therefore, we direct that after making lawful adjustment of the amounts deposited by the State on the relevant dates, the balance outstanding should fetch reasonable interest @ 8% on the amount due till the last pie is paid. Therefore, re-calculation of the amount due to the respondent will be made by the court below and the balance amount arrived at shall be paid by the State within one month from the date of such determination. On FAO 256/06 4 such condition alone, the sale will stand set aside. However, on making the aforesaid deposit, if there is any dispute, it is open to the State to agitate the same before the appropriate forum. Since the parties are before us and since the matter has to be disposed of at an early date, we direct that both parties shall appear before the court below formally on 24.8.2009 and thereafter, on such date, as the matter may stand adjourned by the execution court. The appeal is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta FAO 256/06 5 FAO 256/06 6