Allowed

Anice @ Anice Paul v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2012CRP/29/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition regarding land acquisition execution, the High Court of Kerala set aside an order of the execution court for not addressing a specific deposit statement. The Court directed the lower court to consider party contentions and determine appropriation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; parties directed to file calculation statements; lower court to pass a detailed order within three months.

Anice @ Anice Paul Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/16TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 29 of 2012 ()

¶6

EP.NO.537/2009 IN LAR.71/1993 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER:

¶8

ANICE @ ANICE PAUL W/O. JOSEPH PAUL, VAIPANAYIL HOUSE, NO.11/46 LITTLE FLOWER ROAD, ALUVA-1, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTORS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR

¶13

(L.A.) KOTTAYAM.

¶14

3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINIHILLS ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY R3 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶16

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-112012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 29 OF 2012

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶20

Dated this the 07^th day of November, 2012

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The decree holder contends that the dictum in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457]

¶23

has not been correctly applied by the execution court. They contend that the amount deposited by the State on 01.02.1996 should have been appropriated towards interest, cost and then to the land value.

¶24

The Government Pleader invites my attention to paragraphs 51 of the judgment in Gurpreet Singh 's case. She contends that the deposit made on 18.09.2004 is accompanied by a statement. The statement specifies that the amount has to be appropriated towards the land value only. Therefore the appropriation should be on the basis of the terms of deposit as permitted in paragraph 51 of

¶25

Gurpreet Singh 's case.

¶26

C.R.P. No. 29 OF 2012

¶27

¶28

The court below has not specifically adverted to the terms of the statement accompanying the deposit made on 18.09.2004. I have no option but to set aside the impugned order. The decree holder as well as the judgment debtors can file separate calculation statements. The court below shall advert to the contentions of either parties and pass a detailed order. The execution proceedings shall be taken to a logical end within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

The parties shall appear in the court below on 03.12.2012. The Registry to send back the records forthwith.

¶30

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶31

V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE.

¶32

smm

Anice @ Anice Paul v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anice @ Anice Paul v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohanan Nair Vs State of Kerala

The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Vydyuthi Bhavan Vs Sister Jerry

M.U.Kuriakose Vs K.J.John

V.C.Thomas Vs M.J.Devasia

Valsa Cherian Vs Mathew Cherian

Ramapanikkar Divakarapanikkar Vs Baburaj