IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 350 of 2009()
1. SARAMMA KURIAKOSE ,
... Petitioner
2. BABU KURIAKOSE,
3. JESSY JACOB, W/O.JACOB M.V.,
4. VALSA JAMES W/O.MR.JAMES,
5. SHERLY KURIAKOSE W/O.BABY P SCARIAH,
6. BEENA THARIAN W/O.THARIAN,
7. JOHNSON KURIAKOSE S/O.LATE KURIAKOSE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :10/03/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P. No. 350 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010.
ORDER
In this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioners
call in question the order in E.P.533 of 2007 in LAR 335
of 1988 dated 29.11.2008.
2. 74.96 Ares of land in Sy. No. 1233/4, 5 and
6-3 of Kothamangalam Village was acquired by the State.
Award was passed and dissatisfied with the award,
enhancement was sought for. Ultimately it was found
that an amount of Rs.24,60,490/- was due to the
claimant. That amount was deposited and the execution
petition, E.P.88 of 2004, was closed. That amount was
determined on the basis of the order of this court in
C.R.P. 548 of 2006 dated 6.11.2006.
3. Thereafter the petitioner moved the court
below claiming interest on solatium on the basis of the
decision reported in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India
((2006) 8 SCC 457). It appears that the court below in
CRP.350/2009. 2
execution directed the parties to file their calculation
statements regarding the amount due and the amount
paid. Both the petitioners as well as the respondent filed
their respective calculations. The court below on a scrutiny
found that both of them are not acceptable and went on to
make an independent calculation and came to the
conclusion that an excess amount of Rs.18,59,132.10 has
been paid. The said order is under challenge.
4. It is difficult to understood how the court below
has arrived at the conclusion that an excess amount of
Rs.18,59,32.10 has been paid. Obviously, the court below
has not looked into the earlier order of this court and the
order in E.P. 88 of 2004. The court below has erred in its
approach in arriving at the conclusion as to the interest on
solatium for which the petitioner is entitled to as found by
the court below. The matter requires reconsideration.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed, and
the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded
to the court below for a fresh consideration in accordance
CRP.350/2009. 3
with law and in the light of what has been stated in the
judgment.
P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE
sb.