Dismissed

Vijalaxmi W/O Late Suresh Jituri v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024WP/100508/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants challenged an execution court's calculation of 12% additional market value on enhanced compensation from the preliminary notification date instead of the possession date. The High Court found the Reference Court's award unchallenged and consistent with Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vijalaxmi W/O Late Suresh Jituri Vs the Assistant… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256 WP No. 100508 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.100508/2024(LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VIJALAXMI W/O. LATE SURESH JITURI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/BUSINESS, R/O: 33, 39 APPORVA NAGAR, MANJUNATH NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 009.

¶8

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SMT. ARUNA W/O. RAJESH BURBURE, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO. 37, PURUSHOTTAM NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 009.

¶10

SMT. SUVARNA W/O VINAY JARTARGHAR AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: EUREKA COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 009.

¶11

JAAYACHAND S/O. TUKARAMSA JITTURI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GURUKRUPA, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 009,

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI B. S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256 WP No. 100508 of 2024

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, AND SLAO, DHARWAD – 580 001,

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14-12-2023 SO FAR AS GRANTING LIBERTY TO RECOVER THE EXCESS DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS. 55,745/- FROM PETITIONERS AND ORDER OF DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION NO. 175/2017 PASSED BY II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD VIDE ORDER DATED 14-12-2023 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 passed in E.P.No.175/2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad, produced as per Annexure-C.

¶23

Heard learned counsel Sri.B.S.Sangati, appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256 WP No. 100508 of 2024

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are the claimants in LAC No.56/2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, (for short, ‘the Reference Court’). The Reference Court has passed the award fixing compensation at Rs.1,000/- per square feet in respect of the acquired land. In addition to that, it is held that the claimants are entitled for additional market value at 12% per annum on the enhanced market value, from the date of taking possession of the property till the date of award.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioners as highlighted by the learned counsel of the petitioners is that even though the Reference Court awarded additional market value at 12% per annum, on the enhanced market value from the date of taking possession of the property till the date of passing of the award, the executing Court proceeded to determine the compensation with additional market value at 12% per annum on the additional market value from the date of preliminary notification till the date of passing of the award. Therefore, it is his contention that the executing Court gone beyond the award passed by the Reference Court.

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256 WP No. 100508 of 2024

¶28

The materials on record disclose that 4(1) notification was issued on 01.07.2009 and award was passed on 02.07.2012. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the possession of the property was taken on 06.10.1995. The award passed by the Reference Court is produced as per Annexure-A. It discloses that the petitioners were held entitled to get additional market value at 12% per annum on such enhanced market value, from the date of preliminary notification till the date of passing of the award or the date of taking possession of the property, whichever is earlier.

¶29

Relying on this portion of the award, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the date of taking possession of the property was on 06.10.1995, the additional market value should have been granted from 06.10.1995. Admittedly, there is no such award passed by the Reference Court. The award specifically states that the additional market value at 12% per annum on such enhanced market value from the date preliminary notification, till the date of passing of the award or the date of taking possession of the property whichever is earlier, is to be paid.

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256 WP No. 100508 of 2024

¶31

As per Section 23 of the land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’) several matters are to be taken into consideration in determining the compensation such as (i) Market value of the land as on the date of 4(1) notification, (ii) Damage sustained by the person interested including the standing crops and trees, (iii) The damage caused to the person interest at the time of taking possession of the land, iv) Damages so caused by reason of acquisition injuriously affecting the other property belonging to the person interested v) Damage caused due to person interest compelled to change his residence or place his business etc and v) Damage if any, bonafide resulting from diminishing of profits of the land.

¶32

As per Section 23(1-A), in addition to the market value of the land as stated above, the Court also required to award 12% P.A. interest on such market value for a period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) notification, in respect of the such land to the date of the award of the collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.

¶33

As per Section 23(2) of the Act, in addition to the market value of the land as stated above, the Court is required

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256 WP No. 100508 of 2024

¶35

to award 30% of the market value in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. The Reference Court has taken into consideration of all these requirements of law and awarded compensation. Admittedly, the award passed by the Reference Court was never challenged by the petitioners to seek grant of additional market value from the date of taking possession of the property till the date of 4(1) notification.

¶36

I have gone through the impugned order passed by the executing Court produced as per Annexure-C, in E.P.No.175/2017. The executing Court considered all these facts and circumstance, in the light of the statutory provisions calculated 12% additional market value on the enhanced market value from 01.07.2009 i.e. the date on which the preliminary notification was issued, till 02.07.2012 i.e. the date of passing of the award. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the said order passed by executing Court.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners even though contended that the possession of the property was taken on 06.10.1995 i.e. much earlier to the passing of the preliminary notification and he has entitled for additional market value from the said date, failed to draw the attention of the Court to the

¶38

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256 WP No. 100508 of 2024

¶39

judgment or award passed by the Reference Court in which it is held that the claimant is entitled for additional market value from such dates as referred to by him. Under such circumstance, I do not find any merit in the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition is dismissed.

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Vijalaxmi W/O Late Suresh Jituri v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vijalaxmi W/O Late Suresh Jituri v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kwality Metals Vs the Branch Manager

Smt. Shanta Alias Bhagirathi W/O Hanumant Kamble Vs Parvati Alias Chandra W/O Irappa Kamble (Since Dead Represented by Her Lrs)

Shri.Ashish S/O. Ratnakar Hattangadi Vs Smt.Vinata W/O. Ashish Hattangadi

Sathyadhana Madvachar Malagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. S. Gopala Reddy S/O S. Venkata Reddy Vs the Sub Registrar

Sri K Umapathi S/O K Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka