Allowed

The Karnataka Electricity Board v. Smt Raziya Begum

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2022WP/686/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Karnataka Electricity Board challenging an execution court order that fixed a compensation payable amount of Rs.10,03,643/- to land owners. The High Court set aside the order because the execution court failed to consider the petitioner's memo of calculation regarding solatium and additional market value, remanding the matter for fresh considerat

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 01.10.2021 in Execution Petition No.41 of 2015 set aside; matter remanded to the executing court to reconsider the calculation of solatium and additional market valu

The Karnataka Electricity Board Vs Smt Raziya Begum — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.686 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SUPRETENDENT ENGINEER SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA -577 202.

¶8

ALSO AT THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD SHANTHA MANSION II FLOOR GANDHINAGAR MAIN ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577 202.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. UTTUR PADMAVATI SURESH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT RAZIYA BEGUM W/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

¶13

R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA

¶14

SHIVAMOGGA – 577 202.

¶15

SRI MOHAMMAD SALIM

¶16

S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶17

R/O TEVARACHATNAHALLI

¶18

SHANTHINAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶19

¶20

SRI MOHAMMED KALEEM S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O II CROSS, NEAR GOUSIYA MASJID, NANJUNDESHWARA NAGAR, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE NORTH - 560096.

¶21

SRI MOHAMMED NADEM

¶22

S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577202.

¶23

SRI MOHAMMED WASSEM @ WASEEM PASHA S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577202

¶24

SRI MOHAMMED AZEEM

¶25

S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577202

¶26

SRI FAHEEMUDDIN S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD,

¶27

MILLAGHATTA,

¶28

SHIVAMOGGA - 577202.

¶29

SMT SHAKIRA BEGUM @ SHAKEER BEGUM W/O LATE HIDAYATHULLA, S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶30

¶31

R/O SHANTHINGAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶32

SMT. TAHERA BEGUM @ TARAHABEGUAM @ TAHEERABEGAM, W/O SHAFIFULLA, D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O NO 97, AZAD ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, SAGAR TALUK - 577401.

¶33

SMT. NASIRA BEGAM @ NAZEERA BEGUM W/O MOHAMMED SAB, D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O 24-3, MAIN ROAD, SORAB TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577429.

¶34

SMT MUNZIRA BEGUM @ MUNZEERA BEGUM W/O FARHAN BEGAM, D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O P AND T COLONY, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶35

SMT MASTURA BEGUM W/O SYED SAHAIL, D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O GANGAPARMESHWARI ROAD, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA 577401.

¶36

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶37

….RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI VARADARAJ R HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 12

¶39

¶40

SMT. ROOPA K R, HCGP FOR R13)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN EXPARTE NO.41 OF 2015 DATED 01^ST OCTOBER, 2021 ANNEXURE-N ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA.

¶42

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Corporation challenging the order dated 01^st October, 2021 passed in Execution Petition No.41 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga. Perusal of the writ petition papers would indicate that respondents 1 to 12 are the owners in possession of the land in question which was acquired by the PRCorporation by issuance of preliminary notification dated 31^st January, 1994 under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act (for short hereinafter referred to as “Act”) and thereafter, final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act came to be issued. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 18^th August, 1995 determining the compensation at Rs.60,314/- per

¶45

¶46

acre in respect of the land in question. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, claimants preferred LAC No.6 of 1993-94 before the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court, by its judgment and award dated 19^th January, 1999, enhanced the compensation from Rs.60,314/- per acre to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. It is the grievance of the claimants that the petitioner-Corporation has not paid the amount and as such, the claimants filed Execution Petition No.41 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court. Before the trial Court, both the claimants and the petitioner-Corporation have filed memo of calculation and the Executing Court, taking into consideration the memo of calculation filed by the decree holder so also the judgment debtor, by its order dated 01^st October, 2021, has held that judgment debtor has to pay a sum of Rs.10,03,643/- as on 07^th December, 2020. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Corporation has preferred this writ petition.

¶47

I have heard Smt. Uttur Padmavati Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation; Sri Varadaraj

¶48

¶49

R. Havaldar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 12 and Smt. Roopa K R, learned High Court Government Pleader, for Respondent No.13.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation invited the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the Execution Court, so also the finding recorded with regard to the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner-Corporation and submitted that the Executing Court has not considered the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner-Corporation and accordingly, the petitioner-Corporation has suffered the order.

¶51

Per contra, Sri Varadaraj R. Havaldar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the learned High Court Government Pleader sought to justify the impugned order.

¶52

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the Execution Court. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

¶53

" On perusal of the memo of calculation produced by the Decree holder and the judgment debtor, it is see that the judgment debtor has not calculated the solatium

¶54

¶55

and additional market value on the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. "

¶56

It is evident from the writ papers that as per Annexure-M the petitioner-Corporation has calculated 30% solatium on the enhanced amount and also paid 12% additional market value. In view of the fact that the judgment debtor/petitionerCorporation has calculated the solatium and the additional market value as stated above, I am of the view that the Execution Court has not considered the same while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, order dated 01^st October, 2021 is liable to be set aside directing the Execution Court to re-consider the issue afresh after considering the memo of calculation produced by both the judgment debtor and the Decree holder and in terms of the judgment and award passed in LAC No.09 of 1996. In the result, I pass the following:

¶57

O R D E R

¶58

Writ Petition allowed;

¶59

Order dated 01^st October, 2021 passed in Execution Petition No.41 of 2015 by the Principal

¶60

¶61

Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Shivamogga is set aside;

¶62

Matter is remanded to the Executing Court with a direction to reconsider the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶63

In the event if the Execution Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner-Corporation is liable to pay in excess of the memo of calculation filed therein, petitioner-Corporation be directed to pay the difference amount at the earliest and within the time frame.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

lnn

The Karnataka Electricity Board v. Smt Raziya Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Electricity Board v. Smt Raziya Begum

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

Mariya Prasanna Kumar Vs Mariya Prathap Kumar

Sri v Prasad Vs Sri Manu N

M/S Ambika Rice Industries Vs Sri T R Venkatesh

Sri Muniraju Vs Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Road

Sri v Venkatesha Vs Sri G M Krishnappa

Mr R Marappa Raju Vs Mrs R Pushpalatha