IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 584 of 2009() --------------------- LAR.322/1982 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN LAR NO.322/82 IN ADDL, SUB JUDGE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD, TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY PRESENT MANAGER, V.S. RADHAKRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH FRANKLIN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN LAR NO.322/82 IN ADDL.SUB JUDGE: ----------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.584 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the decree holder in L.A.R.No.322 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam and the execution petitioner in E.P.No.362 of 2002 over the decree passed in L.A.R.No.322 of 1982. The learned Sub Judge, after examining the rival statement filed by both sides, the decree holder and the State, has passed the impugned order quantifying the amount due to the decree holder under the decree. That order is challenged in the revision contending that the decree holder is entitled to additional sum over and above arrived at by the court below as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. I heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Govt.Pleader. Calculation made by the court below in the impugned order is challenged on two grounds by C.R.P.584/09 2 the decree holder/revision petitioner. Only 15% of solatium was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award, and so much so, the decree holder is entitled to 15% more solatium on the awarded amount, and till notice of deposit given by the State, the decree holder is entitled to get interest on the decreed amount are the grounds raised to assail the order of the court below. The learned Govt. Pleader resisted the challenges contending that the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer much earlier to the amended Act of 1984, and the reference court has also passed a decree allowing enhanced compensation in 1982. The appeal preferred by the State had been dismissed confirming the decree of the reference court. In the execution proceedings, the decree holder had moved for attachment of the amount in the custody of a garnishee, and, later, that attachment amount had been brought to the court. That was done with notice to the decree holder, is the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the decree holder is entitled to claim interest only till attached amount was brought to the court. C.R.P.584/09 3 3. The decree holder has produced a copy of the statement filed before the execution court, marking it as Annexure I in the revision. Perusing that statement, it is seen, the decree holder has claimed 15% solatium on award amount of Rs.1,86,679/- over and above the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the decree holder that an additional amount as referred to above towards 15% of solatium on the award amount passed by the Land Acquisition Officer can be claimed in addition to the enhanced compensation under the decree passed by the reference court. The execution court has correctly excluded that amount while calculating the amount due to the decree holder under the decree. Calculation made under Annexure I by the decree holder claiming 15% solatium on the award amount passed by the Land Acquisition officer and apportionment made thereafter with reference to the deposits made from time to time has given rise to higher claim by the decree holder than what is legally due under the decree passed by the reference C.R.P.584/09 4 court. No other challenge was canvassed before me with respect to the calculation made by the court below other than the claim set forth by the decree holder in its Annexure I statement based on a claim for 15% of additional solatium over the award amount passed by the Land Acquisition officer, which is not at all allowable. Then the only question that remains to be considered is regarding the interest due to the decree holder on the amount found due as per the calculation made by the court below. The court below has taken note that the entire amount found due, that is, a sum of Rs.20,40,923.14 had been deposited by the State as on 17.10.2003. The calculation made by the court below under the impugned order clearly spells out that the principles of apportionment had been correctly followed in adjusting the amount deposited first towards the interest and then only towards the principal amount, and the amount arrived at as due is reckoned with interest on the principal amount till date of deposit of the amount before the court. There is apparently no error or mistake in the order passed by the court below, and, in fact, it has calculated interest due on the principal amount till date of C.R.P.584/09 5 deposit. In the given facts of the case, where the amount had been brought to the court from the garnishee, probably at the instance of the decree holder, it cannot be contended that the decree holder had notice of the deposit as and when it was brought to the court. No separate notice from the judgment debtor is warranted in the circumstances and the claim canvassed for further interest in the present case, after the amount being brought to the court from the garnishee, does not arise for consideration at all. There is no merit in the revision and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp