IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 CRP.No. 121 of 2006() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/08/2005 IN EP 149/99 IN LAR.90/1995 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ SATHYAVAN, AGED 75, S/O. SRI.SANKARAN, RESIDING AT CANIYAMURIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PLAVINCHOTTIL, THEVARA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, the court on the same day PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.121 of 2006 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 O R D E R Property belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the respondent-State. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, petitioner requested for a reference and the reference court took the case on file as L.A.R. No.90 of 1995. A decree was passed in favour of the petitioner and directing respondent to pay additional compensation. That decree was challenged by the respondent in L.A.A. No.658 of 1999. Respondent sought for stay of execution of the decree. This Court granted stay of execution on condition that respondent deposited the entire amount in the reference court and granting permission to the petitioner to withdraw 50% of the said amount and in respect of the remaining 50% there was a stay. Accordingly respondent deposited the amount on 5.10.2001. Appeal was allowed by way of remand. After remand, a decree was passed by the reference court on 31.03.2005. Petitioner claimed that since he could not withdraw the 50% of the amount originally awarded and deposited in the court on account of the stay order obtained C.R.P. No.121 of 2006 -: 2 :- by the respondent he is entitled to get interest on the 50% of the principal amount at the rate of 15% per annum. Reference court has rejected that claim of petitioner relying on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Mariyamma (2005 [2] KLT 587). Petitioner is aggrieved by that order and has filed this Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the decision in State of Kerala v. Mariyamma (supra) has no application to the facts of this case. According to the learned counsel when withdrawal of 50% of the amount deposited by the respondent in the reference court is stayed pursuant to the order of this Court it is as good as no deposit and petitioner is entitled to realise interest as stated above. Learned counsel has relied on the decision in R.D.O., Fort Kochi v. Kurian (2005 [2] KLT 863). Learned Government Pleader supported the order passed by the reference court. 2. There is no dispute that on account of the stay order passed by this Court in the appeal preferred by the respondent, petitioner could not withdraw the 50% of the amount which respondent had deposited in the reference court. The decision in State of Kerala v. Mariyamma (supra) relied on by the reference court to reject the prayer of petitioner has no C.R.P. No.121 of 2006 -: 3 :- application to the facts of the case since, there question considered was applicability of Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) to a decree passed under the Land Acquisition Act. It was held that that provision does not apply. Here it is not the question of application of Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code but a question of liability of respondent to pay interest for the reason of petitioner not being able to withdraw the amount in view of the stay obtained by the respondent. In R.D.O., Fort Kochi v. Kurian (supra) this Court held that a deposit made (in the Nationalised Bank) after obtaining order from the court (for stay) is not payment as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code. Since withdrawal of the amount was stayed on the request of the respondent, petitioner is put to loss. Such deposit does not also absolve liability of respondent to pay interest during the relevant period. Hence reference court was not justified in holding that petitioner is not entitled to get interest during the relevant time. As per the award respondent had to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter. Period of one year after taking possession of the property has already expired. Hence petitioner is entitled to get C.R.P. No.121 of 2006 -: 4 :- interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Accordingly I hold that petitioner is entitled to get interest at the rate of 15% on the principal sum of Rs.5,10,413.69 from 05.10.2001 till 31.03.2005. Petitioner is entitled to realise the said amount. Civil Revision Petition is allowed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv