IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 877 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2005 IN EP.NO.42/2003 IN LAR.44/1997 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, VIDYANAGAR, KASARGOD. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.KASARGOD.P.O., KASARGOD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT: PETITIONER/CLAIMANT -------------------------------- MAIMOONA, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.JAJI.B.K.ABDULLA, BISMILLA MANZIL, BAPPAYITHOTTI, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 2555/05 IN CRP 877/05 DISMISSED 25.1.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P NO. 877 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the one line order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kasargod in EP 42/03 in LAR 44/97. The order is to attach a sum of Rs.1,01,095.96/-. 2. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the court below has not properly considered the statement filed by the revision petitioner, namely the Government, for arriving at a decision. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent in the revision would submit that since the EP is already closed, the remedy for the Government is to file an appropriate petition against that order and not to challenge this order. 4. It has to be understood that this case has been filed on 22.8.05 and the final order has been passed only in September 2005. It is a well settled principle that when subsequent orders are passed, the doctrine of interdependency would come into play and therefore, the court below has to mould the final orders in the light of the order passed by the higher court. Therefore, there is no bar in considering C.R.P. NO.877/05 2 this application. The difficulty for the court now in this case is that the order does not reflect consideration of the alleged objections. If objections are filed, it really requires consideration and the entitlement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act comes under different heads and there have been judicial decisions for and against the claimants. So the correct position as on the date of passing that order would be relevant to determine the correctness of the amount. Therefore, this court is left only with one option of setting aside the order and directing the court below to consider the matter afresh by directing both parties to file calculation statements, which according to them is the correct. The court shall consider the same, hear the arguments of the counsel on legal questions and decide the amount. If the amount is less, there may be a direction to deposit the balance amount and if the amount disbursed is in excess, there may be a direction for reimbursement. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 26.2.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.877/05 3