IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 31005 of 2006(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ARCH BISHOP OF ERNAKULAM, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY PROCURATOR & POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, FR.LUKOSE KUNNATHOOR. BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO STATE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H-III, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 29-9-95 IN L.A.R.NO.194/94 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE STATEMENT IN E.P.NO.568/03 IN L.A.R.NO.194/94 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-2-2006 IN E.A.NO.896/04 IN E.P.NO.568/03 IN LAR.NO.194/94 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM /True Copy/ PA to Judge. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.31005 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the decree holder- the Arch Bishop of Ernakulam challenging the order of the execution court fixing the balance amounts due, rejecting the balance statement filed by the decree holder- Arch diocese 2. Heard Sri.Jimmy John, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader. According to Sri.Jimmy John, the principles of appropriation to be applied when part payments are made towards land acquisition decree debts have not been correctly applied by the execution court. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the issue is to be resolved on the basis of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ( 2006(8) Supreme Court Cases 457) 3. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that Ext.P3 order has to be set aside and the execution court has to be directed to take a fresh decision on the issue as to what is the amount WPC.No.31005/06 2 that is legally and correctly due to the decree holder under the decree in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh's case. The result is that Ext.P3 is quashed and the Execution Court is directed to take fresh decision in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ( 2006 (8) Supreme Court Cases 457) regarding appropriation of amounts when part payments are made towards land acquisition decree debts. Since the amount involved is substantial and the decree holder is losing interest, the Execution court will give priority and take a decision at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.31005/06 2