IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20080 of 2008(M) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 37,38,39/2005 IN LAR.117/1990 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. E.J.JACOB, S/O.CHACKO KOCHUCHACKO, ELANJIKKAL, PIRALASSERI MURI, MULAKKUZHA, THIRUVALLA. 2. E.J.SUSANNA, D/O.CHACKO KOCHUCHACKO, ELANJIKKAL, PIRALASSERI MURI, MULAKKUZHA, THIRUVALLA. 3. E.JACOB VARGHESE, S/O.CHACKO KOCHUCHACKO, ELANJIKKAL, PIRALASSERI MURI, MULAKKUZHA, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. MR.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20080/2008 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE BALANCE STATEMENT IN E.P.37/2005. P2: COPY OF BALANCE STATEMENT IN EP 38/2005. P3: COPY OF BALANCE STATEMENT IN EP 39/2005. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC.NO.14970/2007. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 16/10/2007 IN CONT.CASE (C) 1458/2007. P6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED IN CONT.CASE (C)1458/2007 DTD. 18/11/2007. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CP37/05 IN LAR 117/90 DTD. 23/08/2007. P8: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER. P9: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN E.P.NO.37/05, 38/05 AND 39/05. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): LAR NO.117/90 COMMON JUDGMENT IN 119/90 & 120/90. R1(B): JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.2036/95 DTD. 12/07/2001. R1(C): JUDGMENT IN LAA 474/94,520/94 AND 432/94. R1(D): JUDGMENT IN AFA NOS.8,9,10 OF 2002 MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT. R1(E): JUDGMENT IN RP.NO.982/04 IN AFA 8/02, RP.NO.983/04 IN AFA NO.10/02 & RP NO.984/04 N AFA NO.09/02. R1(F),(G)&(H):STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2006 (8) SCC 457. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.20080 OF 2008 (M) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for the entire records leading to Ext.P9 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. to declare that calculation in Ext.P1 to P3 balance statement is as per the Supreme Court ruling reported in 2006 (3) SCC 457 [Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India] and direct the Sub Court to accept Exts.P1 to 3 calculation statement. iii. to grant such other reliefs which are just and necessary in the interest of justice. 2. Petitioners are the decree holders 3 to 5 in E.P.Nos.37, 38 and 39 of 2005 in LAR.Nos.117, 119 and 120 of 1990 of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. WPC.20080/08 2 3. The short question falling for consideration in the writ petition relate to the mode of appropriation of the amount deposited towards the land acquisition in terms of the award passed, which was modified by the Sub Court by granting enhanced compensation, and later, in appeals providing further enhanced compensation by this Court. Ext.P9 order passed by the learned Sub Judge negativing the calculation made in Exts.P1 to P3 statement filed by the decree holders, by which apportionment of the amount towards the interest in respect of the deposit made by the Land Acquisition Officer also was made by the decree holders in fixing the amount to be deposited by the State on the principles laid down in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ((2006) 8 SCC 457) is challenged in the writ petition seeking for quashing that order, with direction to the court below to accept Exts.P1 to P3 calculation statement compelling the State to deposit the amount as claimed in those statements. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Govt. Pleader. According to the counsel, the WPC.20080/08 3 decision of the apex court referred to above contemplates the mode of appropriation by which at every stage of deposit of compensation even including the deposit made by the Land Acquisition Officer of passing of the award, the decree holder is entitled to adjust such amount towards the interest first, then to costs and lastly towards the principal amount. Viewed in that perspective, it is submitted by the counsel, only partial deposit had been made by the State from time to time and the balance amount due as calculated under Exts.P1 to P3 statements has to be deposited to satisfy the decree passed in the three LAR cases. I find that the learned counsel for the petitioners by pressing the arguments canvassed as above want to give a different interpretation to the principles laid down by the apex court in the above referred case. The learned Sub Judge has quoted in extenso from the judgment of the apex court in Ext.P9 order as to how the apportionment has to be made on the deposit made and it has been held that the decree holders have no right to deduct the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer towards the interest and that they can claim interest only to the enhanced amount WPC.20080/08 4 awarded by the reference court. The decree holders in Exts.P1 to P3 statements had deducted the amount received from the Land Acquisition Officer towards the interest which was found to be wrong and unacceptable. I find no impropriety or illegality in the reasonings of the court below which is strictly in consonance with the principles laid down in the decision of the apex court, and Ext.P9 order is not open to challenge on the grounds canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The counter affidavit filed by the State would show that whatever amount found liable to be deposited, as found at by the learned Sub Judge had been deposited by way of demand drafts by the State. In the above circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp