KOTHANDARAMA IYER Vs. KAMALAKSHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these Original Petitions, petitioners and respondent are the same and a common question of law arises. Accordingly, I heard all these petitions together.

(2.) In O. P. 11222/90 - J, petitioners challenge the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Tribunal), Palakkad, the 6th respondent, directing the petitioners to refund a sum of Rs. 2,367,17 as excess amount of rent received by them. This is for the period 1152 M. E. (1976 - 77). In O. P. 1389/92-M, the petitioners challenge Ext. P4 order of Special Deputy Collector (L. T.), Palakkad, ordering to refund a sum of Rs. 2,799.28 together with 6% interest on the principal amount of Rs. 2,710/-. This also is stated to be the excess amount of rent paid for the years 1150 M.E. (1974-75). In O. P. 1508/92-D, challenge is against Ext. P5, whereby the Special Deputy Collector (L.T.), Palakkad ordered refund of an amount of Rs.2,227/-together with interest at 6% on the principal amount of Rs. 2,152/- till realisation, which is stated to be an excess amount paid by way of rent for the year 1151 M. E. (1975-76).

(3.) The Facts which are necessary for determining the question involved in the case may briefly be stated as follows; petitioners filed an application under S.16 of K. L. R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) for resumption, impleading the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 5 as the tenant in-possession. Though the petitioners applied for resumption of the entire extent of land, the Tribunal allowed the application only in respect of one half of the properties measuring 5.12 acres C.R.P. No. 595/72 was filed before this court against the order of resumption, but that was dismissed and the order of the Tribunal became final. However, petitioners got possession of the property allowed to be resumed only on 23-6-1977.