Kerala High Court
E.P.No.277/1993 In Lar No. 22/1986 Of ... vs Union Of India [2001(3) Klt 489 (Sc) on 3 July, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2014/12TH CHAITHRA, 1936
CRP.No. 764 of 2008
------------------------
E.P.NO.277/1993 IN LAR NO. 22/1986 OF ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM
DATED 03-07-2008
..
APPLICANT/REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MADHUBEN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*1. NARAYANA PILLAI KARUNAKARAN PILLAI,
IDUNGATTIL HOUSE, POOVANTHURUTHU KARA,
PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE. ( D I E D).
*SOLE RESPONDENT DIED AND ADDL.R2 TO R5 IMPLEADED:
R2. SMT.INDIRAKUTTY AMMA, IDUNGATTIL HOUSE,
POOVANTHURUTHU KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R3. SRI. HARILAL.K., ...DO.....
**R4. SRI.SASIKUMAR, IDUNGATTIL ANANDA BHAVAN,
CHANNANIKKAD PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.( D I E D).
R5. SRI.E.ANANDAVALLY, ASWATHY BHAVAN,
PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
*THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT ARE
IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R2 TO R5 VIDE
ORDER DATED 23/09/2009 IN I.A.NO.97/2009.
Kss ..2/-
...2....
CRP.NO.764/2008
**ADDL.RESPONDENT 4 DIED & ADDL.RESPONDENTS R6 TO R8
IMPLEADED:
R6. M.P.MAYAMOL, AGED 46, W/O.LATE K.SASIKUMAR,
EDINGADIYIL, ANANDA BHAVAN, CHANNANIKKADU PO,
CHANANIKKADU KARA, PANACHIKKAD VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R7. GEETHA S.KUMAR, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.LATE K.SASIKUMAR,
....DO....DO...DO.....
R8. MEENU S.KUMAR, MINOR, AGED 17 YEARS,
D/O. LATE K.SASIKUMAR, ...DO..DO...., MINOR, REPRESENTED
BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, M.P.MAYAMOL NAMED ABOVE.
** THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 4TH RESPONDENT ARE
IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R6 TO R8 VIDE
ORDER DATAED 7/01/2010 IN I.A.NO.3670/2009 IN CRP.NO.764/08.
R2,R3 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.M.UNNITHAN
SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR
ADDL.R6 TO R8 BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN
SRI. P.K.MURALEEDHARAN
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
CRP.NO.764/2008
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: N I L
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A-1: TRUE COPY OF COMPUTATION STATEMENT ISSUED
BY M/S. MENON & MENON, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 27/10/2003.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K. HARILAL, J.
----------------------
C.R.P. No.764 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2014
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the Order of the Additional Sub-court, Kottayam in EP No.277 of 1993 in L.A.R.No.22 of 1986. The original order dated 09/10/2002 fixing the liability on the side of the State, and E.P.No. 277 of 1993 has been set aside by this Court in CRP No.1217 of 2003. This court remitted the matter to the court below and directed the parties to file fresh statements and further directed the court below to pass orders within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. Subsequently, the impugned order is passed fixing the further liability of Rs.3,84,850.63/- as on 02/04/2008. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.
2. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly admitted that the amount determined by the court below is in violation of the C.R.P. No.764 of 2008 2 method prescribed by the Apex Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India [2001(3) KLT 489 (SC)], Santha Vs. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLT 628) and Bhasi Nair Vs. State of Kerala (2013 (3) KLT 460).
3. The judgment of the Sub-court, Kottayam dated 22/11/1991 LAR No.22 of 1986 was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 01/09/1999 in Appeal LAA No. 1024 of 1992 filed by the claimant- decree holder against the above said decision of he Sub Court. In Paragraph 17 of the above said trial court (sub court)judgment dated 22/11/1991 in LAR No. 22 of 1986 the amount payable to the claimant- decree holder is clearly stated. Over and above the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Sub Court awarded enhanced land value @ 1740 per are for 48.30 ares and additional land value @ 2,592/- per are for another 29.20 ares. Thus the total extent of the property would come 77.50 ares. The Sub Court has allowed to realise the solatium at 30% with interest on the above said additional land value awarded by the C.R.P. No.764 of 2008 3 Sub Court. The claimant is also allowed to recover an amount calculated 12% p.a. on the market value from 19/08/1980 till 27/12/1983. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 27/12/1983 and possession of land was taken on 31/12/1983. The claimant is also further allowed to recover interest @ 9% p.a. on the above said total (additional compensation) for the 1st one year from 31/12/1983. If the said amount is not paid within the said period of one year, the decree holder is entitled to get the enhanced land value, the 12% additional market value, 30% solatium and interest as mentioned in paragraph 23 of the Sub Court judgment as laid down in Sunder Vs. Union of India [2001(3) KLT 489 (SC)]. In Sunder's Case and in Santha Vs. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLT 628) the Court held that compensation includes, land value additional 12% market value and the solatium. Thus the decree holder is entitled to get interest also on the compensation amount till the amount is paid or deposited in court for C.R.P. No.764 of 2008 4 payment to decree holder. In Bhasi Nair Vs. State of Kerala (2013 (3) KLT 460) this Court held that "deposit" is an unconditional deposit in court for payment to the decree holder without any rider or condition on payment. Once the amount is deposited in court, appropriation of the amount has to be made as laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457)ie., accrued interest should be adjusted first from the court deposit, then solatium and costs and then the land value. But in the instance case, the determination of balance amount is unsustainable in view of the decisions referred above.
In view of the above discussions at the Bar, the impugned order under challenge is liable to be set aside and I do so. The matter is remitted back to the court below to determine the actual amount due to the claimant, in view of the decisions in Sunder Vs. Union of India [2001(3) KLT 489 (SC)], Santha Vs. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLT 628), Bhasi Nair Vs. State C.R.P. No.764 of 2008 5 of Kerala (2013 (3) KLT 460) and Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457), within a period of three months from today. The parties are at liberty to file fresh statement of the accounts, if necessary.
Sd/-K.HARILAL JUDGE MJL/OKB