STATE OF KERALA v. GRACY THOMAS PANAMTHOTTATHIL AND OTHERS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 9TH CHAITHRA,** **1944** ## **OP(C) NO. 2135 OF 2021** **AGAINST ORDER DATED 16.03.2021 IN E.A NO.16/2021 AND** **17/2021 IN EA NO.161/2016 IN EP NO.3/2014 IN LAR 73/2011 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645** **BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/DECREE HOLDER:** - **1 GRACY THOMAS PANAMTHOTTATHIL, PAZHAVANGADI, RANNI,PIN-689 672** - **2 SUJA THOMAS, PANAMTHOTTATHIL, PAZHAVANGADI, RANNI,PIN-689 672** - **3 ASHA THOMAS PANAMTHOTTATHIL, PAZHAVANGADI, RANNI,PIN-689 672** - **4 SURESH THOMAS, PANAMTHOTTATHIL, PAZHAVANGADI, RANNI, PIN-689 672** **BY ADVS. ARUN.B.VARGHESE AISWARYA V.S. VARNA MANOJ** O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2022, THE COURT ON 30.03.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 ..3.. **A.BADHARUDEEN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021** **------------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 30[th] day of March, 2022** ## **J U D G M E N T** The State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Pathanamthitta, who is the judgment debtor in EP No.3 of 2014 in LAR No.73 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner impugns common order in E.A. No.16 of 2021 and E.A.No.17 of 2021 in E.A.No.161 of 2016 in E.P.No.3 of 2014 in LAR No.71 of 2011 dated 16.03.2021. The respondents herein are the decree holders in the above execution petition. O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 ..4.. 3. Heard both sides in detail and perused the relevant records and the order impugned. 4. In this matter, an award was passed in a Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) and thereafter, E.P.No.3 of 2014 was filed to execute the award, since the judgment debtor failed to deposit the award amount in time. During the pendency of this E.P., the matter referred to Lok Adalat and an award was passed on 31.01.2016. The terms of settlement award is as under; “Settled for Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine lakhs only). The respondent is directed to deposit the amount within two months on the receipt of the order. On deposit the amount will be realised to the claimants.” 5. As per the terms of the settlement, the judgment debtor was bound to deposit the above said amount within a period of two months on receipt of the O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** order. Admittedly, the amount was deposited only on 09.12.2016. As per the terms of the award, the amount should be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. When the order was received, it is not mentioned anywhere. Anyhow, Rs.39 lakh was received by the decree holder. Prior to deposit the said amount on 09.12.2016, the decree holder filed petition to restore the EP and the same was allowed on 03.08.2016, since the amount agreed upon by the settlement was not deposited within time. Thereafter, the petitioner filed EA No.16 of 2021 to review the order restoring the EP and for condoning delay of 1614 days in filing the review petition. The judgment debtor/petitioner raised contention that the settlement award passed on 31.01.2016 was merged with award in LAR, E.P. No.3 of 2014 cannot be proceeded. O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 6. The decree holder filed objection and contended that since the judgment debtor defaulted deposit of the amount as settled before the Lok Adalat, the award in LAR was revived and the decree holders could realise the amount as per the original award. The learned Sub Judge appraised the contention raised by the decree holder and consequently, E.A. No.16 of 2021 and E.A.No.17 of 2021 were dismissed. 7. The learned Government Pleader reiterated the contentions urged before the trial court and he submitted that since the award of the Lok Adalat dated 31.01.2016 does not provide for interest, in case of default in depositing the amount within a period of two months, no amount in excess of Rs.39,00,000/- is entitled by the decree holder. 8. Whereas, the learned counsel for the O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** decree holder submitted that even though, the award of the Lok Adalat does not provide for interest, in case of default in depositing Rs.39,00,000/- within two months, a settlement reached in the Lok Adalat, while an execution of an earlier award or decree has been pending, it cannot be said that the said award passed by the Adalat would merge with the original award passed. 9. In this connection, the learned counsel for the decree holder placed a decision of this Court reported in [2009(2) KHC 533] : [ILR 2009 (2) Ker 620] : [2009(2) KLT 338], **Ambika Rajan v. Basheera Beevi and Another** . In the said decision one issue decided by this Court is the legal effect of compromise arrived at between the parties in an execution petition, when referred before the Lok Adalat. After having reference to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Legal Service Authorities Act, this Court held that the conclusion is irresistible that a compromise arrived at between the parties in an execution petition before the Lok Adalat is not a decree, though it shall be deemed to be decree for certain purposes. It was held further that an award passed by the Lok Adalat on a compromise entered into between the parties in the execution petition would not be in substitute of the decree passed by the trial court. But, such an award would be binding on the parties to the compromise and the decree can be executed insofar as they are concerned only as per the terms of the compromise. 10. Another decision reported in [2016(4) KHC 397 : 2016 (4) KLT 988], **Sunil K.S. v. Sherly and Another** rendered by this Court also has been placed, highlighting the procedure to be followed by the Lok O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Adalat, when a matter is settled. 11. Though this decision in **Sunil K.S.** 's case(supra) is highlighted, going by Ext.P1 award herein, there is no reason to hold that the award suffers from any defect and the same is legally sustainable. The law is settled in **Ambika Rajan** 's case as to the legal effect of a compromise entered into between the parties in Lok Adalat. Even though the same is not in substitution of the earlier decreed award passed, the parties are bound by the compromise in the matter of execution. To put it otherwise, when an EP is pending for realisation of the decree debt, the parties settle the amount, which is something less that of the amount otherwise entitled on proceeding with the EP, ofcourse there occurs a deemed relinquishment of the amount in excess of what has been agreed upon by way of compromise, unless by O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 **==> picture [30 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** incorporating subsequent term for revival of the decree as such, on failure to deposit the amount in time. In such cases also, if the compromise award provides any further default clause then also, parties are bound by it. When there is no default clause, it cannot be said that on failure to deposit the amount as agreed then, automatically the decree or award would revive. 12. However, here, the amount was deposited only on 31.12.2016. Therefore, the decree holder is entitled to get subsequent interest during the said period in tune with the interest granted in the original award, since the amount was not deposited within time. 13. Therefore, I am of the view that the decree holder herein is entitled to get 15% interest for principle award amount as per the award originally passed by the trial court from 31.03.2016 to 31.06.2016 and nothing O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 **==> picture [30 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** more than that. 14. In view of the matter, the EP can be proceeded for the said purpose. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the common order impugned. However, it is specifically ordered that the revival of the EP shall only for the purpose of granting the interest as indicated above. Accordingly, the Execution Court is directed to proceed with the EP to consider the amount entitled by way of interest as above and direct the judgment debtor to deposit the same. This original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 ..12.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2135/2021** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.01.2016 IN EP NO.03/2014 IN LAR 73/2011 PASSED BY THE LOK ADALATH, PATHANAMTHITTA. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2019 IN EP NO.03/2014 IN LAR 73/11 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EA 15/2020 IN EP NO.03/2014 IN LAR 73/2011 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA 15/2020 IN EP NO.03/2014 IN LAR 73/2011 DATED 16.03.2021 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN EA 16/2021 IN EA 161/2016 IN EP 3/2016 IN LAR 73/2011 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EA 17/2021 IN EA 116/2016 IN EP 03/2014 IN LAR 73/2011 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2021 IN EA 16/2021 AND EA 17/2021 IN EA 161/2016 IN EP 03/2014 IN LAR 73/2011 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.** O.P.(C)No.2135 of 2021 ..13.. ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS** **Exhibit R1 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2013 IN LAR NO.73/2011 OF THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE PATHANAMTHITTA. Exhibit R1 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2019 IN EP NO.3/2014 IN LAR NO.73/2011 OF THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE PATHANAMTHITTA. Exhibit R1 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDERS THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL IN E.A NO.16/2021 BEFORE THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE PATHANAMTHITTA. Exhibit R1 (d) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDERS THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL IN E.A NO.17/2021 BEFORE THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE PATHANAMTHITTA.**