LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-171

C.V. PALAKSHAN Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Decided On June 08, 2015
C.V. Palakshan Appellant
V/S
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Executing Court in E.P. No. 2/2011.

(2.) PETITIONER is the owner of the lands acquired. He has filed the execution petition for recovery of the enhanced compensation awarded by this Court in M.F.A. No. 1048/2001 on 07.04.2005. The matter had earlier come up before this Court in C.R.P. No. 487/2012 c/w C.R.P. No. 486/2012. This Court by order dated 05.03.2013 remanded the matter recording a finding that the Executing Court had made certain mistakes in calculating the compensation that the landlord and the tenants together were entitled to receive. The observations made in paragraph 6 of the order passed by this Court may be usefully extracted as under:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, party in person -C.V. Palakshan contends that the calculation made by the Court below is wrong. Interest on the market value at 9% for the first year from the date of taking possession and at 15% for the subsequent years till the amount was paid/deposited has not been calculated while computing the total amount of compensation payable. He further submits that on the amount of solatium payable and as also on the additional amount payable under Section 23(1 -A), interest is required to be computed and the same has not been done. It is his next contention that apportionment made directing payment of 78% of compensation to the tenants is illegal as there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the so -called tenants particularly because when C.R.P. No. 487/2012 c/w C.R.P. No. 486/2012 was decided by this Court on 13.03.1992, the tenants -petitioners therein had died and the entire proceedings stood abated but without noticing the same, this Court had passed an order on 13.03.1992 granting occupancy rights in favour of the tenants, and therefore, the said order being null and void could not have been taken note of by this Court while disposing M.F.A. No. 4998/2000 c/w 4999/2000 apportioning the compensation between the landlord and the tenant.