IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 877 of 2005()
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
Vs
1. MAIMOONA, AGED 43 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :25/01/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
C.R.P NO. 877 OF 2005
---------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008
ORDER
This civil revision petition is preferred against the one line
order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kasargod in EP 42/03 in
LAR 44/97. The order is to attach a sum of Rs.1,01,095.96/-.
2. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the court
below has not properly considered the statement filed by the revision
petitioner, namely the Government, for arriving at a decision.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent in
the revision would submit that since the EP is already closed, the
remedy for the Government is to file an appropriate petition against
that order and not to challenge this order.
4. It has to be understood that this case has been filed on
22.8.05 and the final order has been passed only in September 2005.
It is a well settled principle that when subsequent orders are passed,
the doctrine of interdependency would come into play and therefore,
the court below has to mould the final orders in the light of the order
passed by the higher court. Therefore, there is no bar in considering
C.R.P. NO.877/05 2
this application. The difficulty for the court now in this case is that
the order does not reflect consideration of the alleged objections. If
objections are filed, it really requires consideration and the
entitlement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act comes
under different heads and there have been judicial decisions for and
against the claimants. So the correct position as on the date of
passing that order would be relevant to determine the correctness of
the amount. Therefore, this court is left only with one option of
setting aside the order and directing the court below to consider the
matter afresh by directing both parties to file calculation statements,
which according to them is the correct. The court shall consider the
same, hear the arguments of the counsel on legal questions and
decide the amount. If the amount is less, there may be a direction to
deposit the balance amount and if the amount disbursed is in excess,
there may be a direction for reimbursement.
Parties are directed to appear before the court below on
26.2.08.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
C.R.P. NO.877/05 3