Disposed

Sri H J Siwani v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2018WA/1360/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered writ appeals challenging an order declining to modify a directive to deposit balance land compensation with interest. The Court upheld the Single Judge's decision distinguishing the instant case, but granted the appellants four weeks to comply, warning of dismissal upon default.

What did the court decide?

Appellants granted four weeks to deposit the required balance amount with interest; non-compliance will lead to dismissal of underlying writs.

Sri H J Siwani Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.A.Nos.1360-1361/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NOS.1360-1361 OF 2016 (KLR-LG)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI H.J. SIWANI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE J.K. SIWANI, M/S. H.M. CONSTRUCTIONS NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶11

SRI M.J. SIWANI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE J.K. SIWANI, M/S H.M. CONSTRUCTIONS, NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶12

... APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶16

W.A.Nos.1360-1361/2016

¶17

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT CELL) PREVENTION OF UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION CELL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, BENGALURU-560009.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA)

¶22

¶23

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.4059-60/2016 DATED 09/03/2016.

¶24

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Having regard to the submissions made, the matters

¶27

are considered on their merits, while ignoring the question of delay.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in the order dated 09.03.2016 as passed in W.P.Nos.4059-60/2016, whereby

¶29

W.A.Nos.1360-1361/2016

¶30

¶31

the learned Single Judge of this Court declined to modify the requirements of the interim order dated 18.02.2016 directing the petitioners/appellants to deposit the balance amount due with interest at the rate of 8%, after deducting interest at the rate of 8% on the sum of �49,00,000/- (Rupees forty nine lakhs) already deposited, within four weeks.

¶32

The submission of the appellants is that in another writ petition bearing No.1121/2016, the Court had directed the petitioner therein to deposit the guidance value of the property.

¶33

The aforesaid aspect was duly taken note of and distinction was pointed out by the learned Single Judge, while observing as under:

¶34

“It is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that there is difference between the two cases, whereas the petitioner in the present case on hand had paid the price and there was no measure of the value insofar as the other case was concerned and it was for want of measure as to the price that would have to be paid by the petitioner at an earlier point of time after the advance amount was forfeited, he was directed to pay the guidance value of the property and hence there is no warrant to modify the

¶35

W.A.Nos.1360-1361/2016

¶36

¶37

earlier order directing the petitioner to pay interest.”

¶38

The orders, as passed by the learned Single Judge, are obviously in exercise of the discretion as regards the grant of interim relief and we find nothing of illegality or infirmity so as to warrant interference in these intra Court appeals.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellants, in the last, made a prayer that the appellants may be granted some more time to deposit as required by the order impugned.

¶40

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has no objection.

¶41

Taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the appellants are granted four weeks’ time from today to make the deposit as required by the order dated 18.02.2016, but while providing that in case of failure of the appellants in making such deposit, the writ petitions pending before the learned Single Judge shall stand dismissed.

¶42

W.A.Nos.1360-1361/2016

¶43

¶44

The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

¶45

All pending interlocutory applications also stand

disposed of.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Sri H J Siwani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H J Siwani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sharath Kumar v R Vs State of Karnataka

K v Sudhakara Gupta Vs K G Pattabhi Ram

Raichur Vikasa Parishad Vs State of Karnataka

H S Muniraju Vs the Secretary

Sri B S Madhe Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S C C I Ltd., Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner