Remanded

Sri.Mallikarjun S/O Sanna Yallappa, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024CRP/100023/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that the Executing Court committed an anomaly by limiting interest calculation till 20.08.1998 without clear basis under the Land Acquisition Act. The court set aside the orders and remanded the matter for recalculating interest till payment or disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders be set aside and the matter remanded to the Executing Court to pass a proper order on interest calculations within six months.

Sri.Mallikarjun S/O Sanna Yallappa, Vs the… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7620 CRP No. 100025 of 2016 C/W CRP No. 100023 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

CRP NO. 100025 OF 2016 C/W. CRP NO. 100023 OF 2016

¶8

In CRP No.100025/2016:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI HIRE YALLAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS.

¶11

SMT. BHIMAWWA W/O. NAGAPPA, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

¶12

SRI RAMAPPA @ RAMANNA S/O. NAGAPPA. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

2A. SMT. JANKAMMA W/O. RAMAPPA @ RAMANNA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶15

2B. JYOTHI D/O. RAMAPPA @ RAMANNA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶16

2C. LATA D/O. RAMAPPA @ RAMANNA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶17

SHRI MUNIYAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7620 CRP No. 100025 of 2016 C/W CRP No. 100023 of 2016

¶19

SHRI SHANKARAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶20

SHRI ANJANAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶21

SHRI SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶22

SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O. NAGAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶23

SMT. ENUKAWWA W/O.VIRUPANNA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

¶24

SMT. LAXMIDEVI W/O. PRAKASH, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶25

ALL ARE R/O: MOCHI STREET, NEAR GANDHI CIRCLE, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI K. H. BAGI, AND S. N. HATTI, ADVOCATE FOR P1; SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR P2 (A TO C) TO 9)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶30

THE SECRETARY, APMC, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI C.S.PATIL, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2)

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7620 CRP No. 100025 of 2016 C/W CRP No. 100023 of 2016

¶34

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF C. P. CODE, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GANGAVATHI IN E.P.NO.94/2013, BY ALLOWING THIS C.R.P IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶35

In CRP No.100023/2016:

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

SRI MALLIKARJUN S/O. SANNA YALLAPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶38

…PETITIONER

¶39

(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, S.N.HATTI AND K.H.BAGI, ADVOCATES)

¶40

AND:

¶41

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶42

THE SECRETARY, APMC, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI C.S.PATIL, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2)

¶45

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF C. P. CODE, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GANGAVATHI IN E.P.NO.152/2012, BY ALLOWING THIS C.R.P IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶46

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7620 CRP No. 100025 of 2016 C/W CRP No. 100023 of 2016

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The petitioners - land losers are before this

¶50

Court in these two petitions aggrieved by the orders dated 12.08.2024 passed in the E.P. Nos. 94/2013 & 152/2012.

¶51

The aforesaid execution petitions in E.P. Nos. 94/2013 & 152/2012 were filed by the petitioners – land losers seeking interest in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India¹ . Accepting the contentions of the petitioners – land losers, the Executing Court has made the calculation as per paragraph No.17 of the impugned order and has held that the petitioners – land losers are entitled for the interest of Rs.6,51,223/- i.e., accrued on the compensation till 20.08.1998 in E.P. No.94/2013 and interest of Rs.6,50,317/- i.e., accrued on the compensation in till 20.08.1998 in E.P. No.152/2012. These orders are put in question by the petitioners – land losers.

¶52

1 AIR 2001 SC 3516

¶53

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7620 CRP No. 100025 of 2016 C/W CRP No. 100023 of 2016

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Executing Court committed grave error in not granting the interest till the date of payment. He further submits that there is no justification in the Executing Court limiting the payment of interest only up to the date of 20.08.1998 and no reason is assigned in that regard. He submits that the interest calculated is payable in terms of the statutory provisions contained under the Land Acquisition Act as such until and unless the entire compensation amount is not paid, the petitioners – land losers are entitled for the interest till such date.

¶55

In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 – beneficiary submits that the entire compensation amount has been paid and satisfied as on 20.01.2000 as such question of payment of further interest would not arise. He, however, submits that the calculation made by the Executing Court appears to be on an incorrect basis, which require reconsideration.

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7620 CRP No. 100025 of 2016 C/W CRP No. 100023 of 2016

¶57

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

¶58

There cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, more particularly Sections 23, 28 & 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the components of the compensation include the determined market value of the property, solecism and the interest and all statutory benefits incidental thereof, and the calculation of interest would run

¶59

up to the payment and satisfaction of the entire compensation amount.

¶60

The Executing Court, while making calculation though, has upheld the rights of the petitioners - land losers to their claim of interest, but for the reason best known, has limited the said calculation of interest only till the 20.08.1998. It is also necessary to note here that, as per the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary, the entire compensation amount was paid

¶61

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7620 CRP No. 100025 of 2016 C/W CRP No. 100023 of 2016

¶62

as on 20.08.1998 and the execution filed in this regard

¶63

was closed, having been satisfied on the 20.01.2000.

¶64

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for

¶65

the parties and on perusal of the records, it is clear that there seem to be an anomaly in the calculation made and arrived at by the Executing Court. The order is not clear as to on what basis, a sum of Rs.6,51,223/- is arrived at and the basis on which the said amount is restricted only up to 20.08.1998. If the compensation as payable under the statute is not paid even as on the date of passing of the impugned order, nothing prevented the Executing Court to make it clear whether the petitioners were entitled for the interest till disposal or till payment of the amount. If, on the other hand, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary, the compensation amount had been paid and satisfied as on the 20.08.1998, what was the reason for the Executing Court to award the compensation of interest thereof.

¶66

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7620 CRP No. 100025 of 2016 C/W CRP No. 100023 of 2016

¶67

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders be set aside and the matters be remanded to the Executing Court. The parties shall be given an opportunity to furnish their calculations and thereafter pass an order with reference to the relevant provisions of law applicable in the matter. Such calculations and the order shall be passed within an outer limit of six (6) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶68

The petitions are allowed accordingly.

¶69

SD/JUDGE

¶70

Vnp*/CT-ASC

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri.Mallikarjun S/O Sanna Yallappa, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Mallikarjun S/O Sanna Yallappa, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt M Vindya Alias Kiranmayi W/O Ravikumar C D Vs Sri C D Ravikumar S/O C D Manohar

Mallikarjun S/O Maruti Mangaj Vs the Director of Municipal

Dr. Ramanagouda S/O Shankargouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Ashwinkumar S/O. Prahlad Pise Vs Smt.Jayalaxmi W/O. Ashwinkumar Pise

Praveen S/O Ishwar Chavan Vs Mrs Vaishnavi W/O Praveen Chavan

Mr.Venkatraman D Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka