IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 280 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :05/08/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.Nos.280, 281, 282, 293 & 310 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 5th August, 2008.
O R D E R
C.R.P.No.280 of 2008 is filed by the State-judgment
debtor against the order in E.P.No.145 of 1996 in L.A.R.No.456 of
1988. C.R.P.No.281 of 2008 is filed by the State, judgment debtor,
challenging the order in E.P.No.149 of 1996 in L.A.R.No.434 of 1988.
C.R.P. No.282 of 2008 is filed against the order in E.P.No.146 of 1996
in L.A.R.No.458 of 1988. C.R.P.No.293 of 2008 is filed against the
order in E.P.No.152 of 1996 in L.A.R.No.427 of 1988 and C.R.P.No.310
of 2008 is filed challenging the order in E.P.No.147 of 1996 in
L.A.R.No.463 of 1988.
2. In all these revision petitions, Executing Court
accepted the calculation statement filed by the decree holder and fixed
the balance amount and posted execution petitions for further steps.
The orders are challenged by the State in these revision petitions filed
under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The learned Government Pleader and learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-decree holder were heard.
CRP.Nos. 280/2008 etc.
2
4. The claimants-decree holders filed E.P.Nos. 145,
149, 146, 152 and 147 of 1996 respectively in L.A.R.Nos.456, 434,
458, 427 and 463 of 1988 respectively, before Sub Court, Ernakulam.
Execution Petitions were originally closed. Respondents challenged
that order before this Court in C.R.P.Nos. 827, 821, 856, 826 and 857
of 2005 respectively. This Court set aside the order of the Executing
court finding that the order is blank and the Executing Court did not
consider the terms of the decree and failed to note that it is a Court of
fact and is bound to give reasons for arriving at a conclusion. This
Court therefore directed the Executing Court to take back the
execution petitions to file and dispose them afresh, in accordance with
law. This Court also made it clear that opinion was not expressed on
the claim of solatium put forward by the respondent-decree holder.
Subsequent to the said orders, executing court disposed the execution
petitions by separate impugned orders finding that statements
furnished by the decree holders are correct and directing the State to
deposit the balance amount. The execution petitions were posted for
steps.
5. Though learned counsel appearing for the
respondent decree holder vehemently argued that claimant is entitled
CRP.Nos. 280/2008 etc.
3
to solatium at 30% and interest under Section 23 (1A) of the Land
Acquisition Act, as well as interest on the entire compensation, when
this Court found that the earlier order passed by the Executing Court
was not supported by reasons and set aside the orders as blank orders
and directed the Executing Court to consider the claim and dispose the
execution petitions afresh, Court is bound to give its reasons for either
upholding the claim for solatium or rejecting the same.
6. As learned Sub Judge did not consider the
entitlement or give any reason for accepting the claim for solatium, the
impugned orders are set aside. Learned Sub Judge is directed to
consider the claim of the respondents afresh in the light of the
decisions of the Supreme Court and shall give reasons for the finding
and dispose the execution petitions, as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
nj.