IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 17940 of 2006(I)
1. NARAYANAN ACHARI RAJAN ACHARI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. V.C.KRISHNAN ACHARI,
3. AYYAPPAN ACHARI SASTHAVACHARI,
4. PARVATHY AMMAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :07/11/2007
O R D E R
M.N.Krishnan, J.
========================
W.P(C).No.17940 of 2006
========================
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2007.
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed by the first claimant in the L.A.R.
against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge,
Pathanamthitta. Respondents 3 and 4 are claimants 2 and 3 and
the second respondent is the fourth claimant and the first
respondent is the judgment debtor in the case. A perusal of the
award passed by the Subordinate Judge in L.A.R. No.1 of 1993
would reveal that out of the amount ordered, claimants 1 to 3
are entitled to have one out of 6 shares each and the fourth
claimant is entitled to the remaining 3 out of 6 shares or in other
words claimants 1 to 3 are entitled to 50% shares jointly and the
fourth claimant is entitled to have the balance 50%.
2. Now the grievance is that claimants 1 to 3 had
withdrawn the entire amount in deposit and therefore the court
below directed them to redeposit an amount of Rs.1,40,301.50.
WP(C) 17940/06 -: 2 :-
It is against that decision, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Heard counsel for the State Government and
unfortunately there is no representation for the fourth claimant.
I am informed that the Execution Petition is still pending
consideration before the court below. Against the award passed
by the Land Acquisition Court, an appeal was preferred and there
was re-fixation of the compensation by the Appellate Court. It is
contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that still
amounts are due to him from the Government whereas the
learned Government Pleader would contend that the amount
already deposited is in excess. In order to resolve the entire
dispute the court has to arrive at a figure, that is, the total
entitlement of compensation in favour of the claimants and
thereafter should see whether claimants 1 to 3 together had
withdrawn any amount in excess of 50% of the amount which is
due to them. Ultimately, if court finds that they had not
withdrawn any amount in excess of 50% due to them, one
cannot hold that they are bound to reimburse the amount. If it is
otherwise, then necessarily claimants 1 to 3 have to be directed
to reimburse the amount which they had drawn in excess than
WP(C) 17940/06 -: 3 :-
what is due to them. Therefore, a final determination regarding
the actual amount due to the claimants is a must for a proper
decision in this case and for that purpose, the matter is already
pending before the Execution Court.
4. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the learned
Subordinate Judge in the execution application and direct that the
court should consider the Execution Petition and fix the amount
of total compensation to find out whether claimants 1 to 3 had
drawn anything in excess of their share. If the court finds that
after fixing the amount they have drawn in excess, then direction
may be given to redeposit. If it is not so, they cannot be directed
to redeposit. If it is found that any amount is still due from the
Government further direction may be given in that regard and
the matter proceeded with.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
M.N.Krishnan,
Judge.
ess 7/11