This appeal was dismissed without admission. The single judge held that the appellants were not entitled to interest for a long delay period because the blame lay with the claimants for not taking steps to expedite proceedings after a supreme court remand.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER. 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
M.F.A.No.100762/2017 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
R.R. HEMANTANAVAR ‘LAXMI KUNJ’ NEAR RAILWAY STATION, BAGALKOT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
(BY SMT.ARCHANA MAGADUM, ADV.)
AND:
(BY SHRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R1, SHRI C.S.PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54 (1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.07.2014 PASSED IN LAC No.34/1982 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECITON 18 (1) OF LA ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Principal Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
was pleased to remit the matter to the reference Court for a decision afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh. Pursuant to the order of remand by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the reference came to be received by the trial Court on 26.10.1998.
claimants moved the Court for hearing of the claim petition.
be made responsible for payment of interest for the said period. We are unable to appreciate the said contention.
claimant being the landloser and opportunity to adduce fresh evidence having been given and such evidence also having been presented and the claimants having taken advantage of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, cannot now turn around and blame the respondent-beneficiary for the delay in prosecution. In fact, the blame lies at the doors of the claimants. They being the landlosers and they having approached the reference Court for escalation of the market value and thus having instigated multiple rounds of litigation, it was required of them to be more diligent and proactive in seeking relief. It is no doubt true that an act of Court can harm no one. But, in the instant case, we do not deem it appropriate to hold the Courts below responsible for the delay. No reasons are forthcoming as to why there was such an inordinate delay. It is not that the claimant was ignorant of the judicial process. He had successfully sought for reference to the reference
Court and thereafter, he was yet again successful in the Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court but after remand by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claimant and the legal representatives have remained mute spectators and no convincing reason is also forthcoming.
by the learned counsel for the appellants is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
“11. As noticed above, the plaint was returned by the City Civil Court, Chennai to the landlady on 20.01.2000 for re-presenting the same after rectification of the defects. However, for the reasons best known to the landlady, the plaint was not represented immediately nor within reasonable time. As a matter of fact, the matter remained dormant in the hands of the landlady and the plaint was represented after five years. and six months on 20.07.2005. Obviously, the landlady cannot derive advantage of her inaction or lack of diligence in representing the plaint. Had the landlady re-
presented the plaint within reasonable time, the matter would have been decided long back. As the facts reveal, the plaint was re-presented on 20.07.2005 and the suit was decreed by the trial court on 24.03.2008. In the circumstances, therefore, the award of interest for the period 20.01.2000 to 20.07.2005 does not seem to be justified.”
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
Jm/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants are entitled to interest for the period of inordinate delay caused by their own lack of diligence in prosecuting the proceedings.
Whether the failure of the claimants to initiate steps to expedite the hearing after the apex court remand bars their claim for interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary/General Manager, Chennai, Central Cooperative Bank Limited and another vs. S.Kamalaveni SundaramReferred¶44
_Secretary/General Manager, Chennai, Central Cooperative Bank Limited and another vs. S.Kamalaveni Sundaram (2011) 1 SCC 790_
R.R. Hemantanavar 'Laxmi Kunj' LRS
Slavee Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner
G. Narendar
M.I. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
