IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 54 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/01/2004 IN EP.180/04 IN LAR.55/1991 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/CLAIMANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. UTHRITTATHINAL LEKSHMI THAMPURATTY, NELUKETTIL KOTTARATHIL, THONNALLOOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 2. POORAMAL MANGALA THAMPURATTI, NALUKETTIL KOTTARATHIL, THONNALLOOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 3. ASWATHINAL AMBALIKA THAMPURATTI, MALIKA KOTTARATHIL, THONNALLOOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRP.NO.54/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A2: COPY OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR NO.55/91 OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DTD. 18TH JULY, 1997. ANNEX.A3: COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DTD. 2ND APRIL, 2003 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ANNEX.A4: COPY OF E.P.NO.180/04 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DTD. 10/12/2004. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: ANNEX.R1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL NOS.857 & 1479 OF 1998 DTD. 02/04/2003. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.54 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. ORDER This revision is in challenge of the order dated 29.01.2009 in E.P.No.180 of 2004 in L.A.R.No.55 of 1991 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta. On deposit of `9,47,424/- which was attached, in the account of the court learned Sub Judge closed the execution petition recording full satisfaction. 2. Learned Government Pleader contends that since the land acquired was taken possession on 21.04.1981, ie. prior to the amendment of Land Acquisition Act came into force on 24.09.1984 respondents are not entitled to the statutory benefits conferred by the said amendment. It is also contended that the mode of calculation of the amount is not in accordance with the decision in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ((2006) 8 SCC 457). Learned Government Pleader contends that respondents have filed execution petition as if over and above the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, there was an enhancement of land value by `25,000/- per Are by this Court. According to the learned Government Pleader while disposing of L.A.A.Nos.857 of 1998 and 1479 of 1998 this Court has only fixed the land value at `25,000/- per Are which includes the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as well. CRPNo.54/2010 2 3. Learned counsel for respondents invited my attention to Annexure-R1, copy of the decree in L.A.A.Nos.857 of 1998 and 1479 of 1998 of this Court to contend that respondents are found entitled to get enhanced land value at `25,000/- per Are which meant that the said amount is further to the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. As the learned Government submitted, petitioner had preferred objection to the execution petition though, no separate objection was preferred after the amount was attached and deposited in the account of the court. But the order under challenge does not show that the objection raised by petitioner was considered. On the other hand learned Sub Judge on account of the deposit of the amount proceeded to close the execution petition recording full satisfaction. 5. On the question as to whether respondents are entitled to get enhanced land value in the light of the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.Nos.857 of 1998 and 1479 of 1998 as contended by either side I am not expressing any opinion since the executing court has to execute the judgment and decree of this Court and the executing court has to consider all objections raised by petitioner to the execution petition. That is not seen done. Resultantly this civil revision is allowed. The order dated 29.01.2009 in E.P.No.180 of 2004 in L.A.R.No.55 of 1991 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta is set aside. That execution petition is remitted to the court of learned Sub Judge for fresh decision on the objections raised by the CRPNo.54/2010 3 petitioner. Executing court is directed to expedite its proceedings. Parties shall appear before the executing court on 21.11.2011. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks