IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 280 of 2008() ------------------------------ ( ORDER DT. 8.11.2006 IN EP. 145/2006 IN LAR. NO.456/1988 OF THE IST ADDL. SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. ..... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), PVIP PROJECT, PERUMBAVOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.BINDU R. RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER -------------------------- M/S.PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD., PALAI, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.JOHN THOMAS. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008, ALONG WITH CRP. NO.282/2008 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.280, 281, 282, 293 & 310 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th August, 2008. O R D E R C.R.P.No.280 of 2008 is filed by the State-judgment debtor against the order in E.P.No.145 of 1996 in L.A.R.No.456 of 1988. C.R.P.No.281 of 2008 is filed by the State, judgment debtor, challenging the order in E.P.No.149 of 1996 in L.A.R.No.434 of 1988. C.R.P. No.282 of 2008 is filed against the order in E.P.No.146 of 1996 in L.A.R.No.458 of 1988. C.R.P.No.293 of 2008 is filed against the order in E.P.No.152 of 1996 in L.A.R.No.427 of 1988 and C.R.P.No.310 of 2008 is filed challenging the order in E.P.No.147 of 1996 in L.A.R.No.463 of 1988. 2. In all these revision petitions, Executing Court accepted the calculation statement filed by the decree holder and fixed the balance amount and posted execution petitions for further steps. The orders are challenged by the State in these revision petitions filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-decree holder were heard. CRP.Nos. 280/2008 etc. 2 4. The claimants-decree holders filed E.P.Nos. 145, 149, 146, 152 and 147 of 1996 respectively in L.A.R.Nos.456, 434, 458, 427 and 463 of 1988 respectively, before Sub Court, Ernakulam. Execution Petitions were originally closed. Respondents challenged that order before this Court in C.R.P.Nos. 827, 821, 856, 826 and 857 of 2005 respectively. This Court set aside the order of the Executing court finding that the order is blank and the Executing Court did not consider the terms of the decree and failed to note that it is a Court of fact and is bound to give reasons for arriving at a conclusion. This Court therefore directed the Executing Court to take back the execution petitions to file and dispose them afresh, in accordance with law. This Court also made it clear that opinion was not expressed on the claim of solatium put forward by the respondent-decree holder. Subsequent to the said orders, executing court disposed the execution petitions by separate impugned orders finding that statements furnished by the decree holders are correct and directing the State to deposit the balance amount. The execution petitions were posted for steps. 5. Though learned counsel appearing for the respondent decree holder vehemently argued that claimant is entitled CRP.Nos. 280/2008 etc. 3 to solatium at 30% and interest under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as well as interest on the entire compensation, when this Court found that the earlier order passed by the Executing Court was not supported by reasons and set aside the orders as blank orders and directed the Executing Court to consider the claim and dispose the execution petitions afresh, Court is bound to give its reasons for either upholding the claim for solatium or rejecting the same. 6. As learned Sub Judge did not consider the entitlement or give any reason for accepting the claim for solatium, the impugned orders are set aside. Learned Sub Judge is directed to consider the claim of the respondents afresh in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court and shall give reasons for the finding and dispose the execution petitions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.