IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 1735 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.5/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, LAKSHADWEEP .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS 6 & 7 ----------------------------- 1. MARIYAMMADA KAREEMA, ANDROTH, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP. 2. MARIYAMADA ASUKHIYA, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SMT.V.DEEPA N.AJITH RESPONDENTS/REFERRING OFFICER & CLAIMANTS 2 TO 5 & 8. --------------- 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 2. MARIYAMMADA JANNATH, -DO- 3. MARIYAMMADA MINNATH, -DO- 4. MARIYAMMADA KAMIL, -DO- 5. MARIYAMMADA BUSHRA, -DO- 6. PUTHIYAVEEDU RAHMATH, D/O. P.V. YOOSUF KOYA THANGAL, ANDROTH ISLAND, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP. ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)(R2,R3,R5,R6) SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN(MEDIATOR) SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1735 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the land acquisition reference court. Heard both sides. 2. The judgment of this court in A.S. No.770/1995, which was filed against the preliminary decree for partition, has admittedly attained finality. The essential terms of the decree of this court in so far as the same pertains to the amount, which is subject matter of L.A.R. 5/1996, are the following; i). The parties are entitled to get share in the suit properties in accordance with the personal law applicable to them. ii). It is open to the appellants to bring the fact that one of the items of the properties was acquired by the Government and hence the nature of that property had already been converted as cash and that L.A.A..No.1735/2008 2 amount is lying in deposits, which is also to be partitioned among the sharers to the notice of the court below so that at the time of passing of the final decree necessary provisions can be made for partition of that amount also”. 3. Even though Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellants would forcefully argue that the question of shares of the various parties to the money under deposit before the reference court has been finally settled by this court, we are of the view that the question has been relegated to the final decree court to be decided in conformity with the personal law applicable to the parties. It is of course seen that the parties except 4th respondent had come to some sort of a settlement between them as regards the apportionment of the amounts under deposit. On the terms of Annexure – A, the shares due to Sri. Mariyammada Janath, Minnath and Bushra (R2,R3 & R5 respectively) represented by Advocate Sri.M.K.Aboobacker is shown as Rs.1,65,546/- each and the shares due to the Sri.Kareema and Azukhiya -appellants represented by Advocate L.A.A..No.1735/2008 3 Sri.P.B.Krishnan is also shown as 1,65,546/-. We are however, unable to act upon Annexure-A since Annexure A was never filed before the court even though it is agreed to by all parties that presently the dispute is between the appellants and respondents 2, 3 and 5 only. 4. There is serious controversy before us as to whether this court by judgment and decree in A.S. No. 770/1995 set aside the preliminary decree in so far as it pertains to the property under acquisition. We do not propose to settle that controversy in this court. There is definitely no room for controversy that the issue of partitioning the amount presently under deposit before the land acquisition court was relegated to the final decree court. Under the impugned judgment what we see is that the land acquisition court has decided the issue taking the view that the decree in so far as it pertains to the acquired property was not set aside by this court. According to us, the judgment and decree in A.S. No.770/1995 does not admit of any doubt that the issue of partitioning the compensation amount has been relegated to the final decree court. Hence it was in violation of L.A.A..No.1735/2008 4 the terms of the decree in A.S. 770/1995 for the court below to have decided the question of partitioning the amount. 5. We set aside the impugned judgment and decree and relegate the issue to be decided by the final decree in O.S. No.363/1999. However, noticing the agreement between the parties, we are inclined to pass the following directions to be complied with by the court below. i). Respondents 4 and 6 in the appeal (Kamil and Rahmath) respectively) be allowed to withdraw the amounts found under the impugned judgment to be due to them. ii). Respondents 2, 3 and 5( Jannath, Minnath and Bushra) respectively) be allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,65,546/- each from out of the amounts under deposits. Iii). Though we would have been inclined to permit the appellants to L.A.A..No.1735/2008 5 withdraw the amount found to be due to them under the impugned judgment, the appellants' counsel submitted before this court that they are keen on withdrawing those amounts. Hence they need not be permitted to withdraw the amounts at this stage. iv). The entire balance amount will be transferred by the learned Subordinate Judge to a Nationalized Bank having branch near to the premises of the court, so that the same can be deposited in the name of the final decree court as a short term deposit. The final decree court will decide the shares due to each of the parties keeping in mind the directions in the judgment and decree of this court in A.S. No.770/1995 and in accordance with law. L.A.A..No.1735/2008 6 The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk