Smt Kusumalatha M J Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 920 OF 2024 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT KUSUMALATHA M J W/O LATE V.MOHANA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶9

SRI. NIKHIL M S/O LATE V. MOHANA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶10

SRI. AKHIL M S/O LATE V. MOHANA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO. 526-C 'A' BLOCK, 1^ST MAIN DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGARA BENGALURU-560 010.

¶13

SMT. HAMSA KUMARI W/O B. CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NEAR GANESH TEMPLE 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN CH 5TH BLOCK, GANGANAGAR BENGALURU-560 032.

¶14

SMT. AMBIKA VENUGOPAL W/O B.N. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT KADIGANAHALLI BETTAHALSUR POST,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶17

JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 157.

¶18

SRI. GANESH RAO S/O ANAND RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT C/O SRINIVASACHAR VIDYANAGAR CROSS

¶19

SRI. KANNAIAH S/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 157.

¶20

SRI. HIRALAL S/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562157 REP BY GPA HOLDER

¶21

SRI. KANNAIAH S/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS (PETITIONER NO.7 HEREIN)

¶22

SMT. PREMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 157.

¶23

SRI. NANDAGOPAL REDDY S/O K. KODANDARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO. 188/32/1 BASHYAM CIRCLE, SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU-560 080. REP BY GPA HOLDER

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶26

R. SATYANARAYANA RAJU S/O LATE R. RAMUSUBBA RAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.65, 2ND FLOOR "BRINDAVAN", SAANJEEVINI NAGAR, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 092.

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SRI. N KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA NO. 678/3, NEERUBHAVI KEMPANNA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024.

¶31

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SHILPA GHANSHYAMBHAI SHAH.,ADVOCATE)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 14.07.2022 IN L.A.CC.NO.1/2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI AND ALLOW THE PETITION BY DIRECTING THE R1 - NHAI TO PAY THE INTEREST AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE PETITION AT ANNEXURE-W.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2021, passed in L.A.C.NO.01/2020, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, by which the application filed by the petitioners under Section 3-H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1956'') read with Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be rejected.

¶39

Brief facts of the case are that:

¶40

2.1 Husband of the petitioner No.1 namely late V. Mohana was the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.11/1 to an extent of 1 acre and 24 guntas situated at Kadiganahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, which he purchased under a registered deed of sale dated 11.12.1989.

¶41

2.2 That a suit for partition had been filed by the family members of said late. V. Mohana in O.S.No.111/2006 (old number O.S.No.250/2000) for relief of partition and separate possession on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶44

2.3 That during the pendency of the said suit, respondent-NHAI vide notification dated 22.07.2003 had acquired 22 guntas of land in the aforesaid Sy.No.11/1 and passed award in a sum of Rs.11,58,690/-. The respondentNHAI had filed an application in I.A.No.8/2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 seeking to implead itself as a party-defendant in the pending suit for partition. However, subsequently on 23.05.2005, respondent-NHAI deposited the entire amount before the Civil Court in L.A.C.No.210/2006 (Old Number.37/2005). In furtherance to Section 3-H (4) of the Act, 1956. That the said amount was deposited before the UCO Bank, Bengaluru on 26.08.2005 in interest bearing fixed deposit.

¶45

2.4 Thereafter, the respondent-NHAI had acquired another portion of same survey number to an extent of 16,900 Sq.Ft. and passed the award on 03.02.2011, in a sum of Rs.2,30,75,298/-. After having passed the award as such the respondent-NHAI deposited the said amount before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli by way of a cheque bearing No.379332 dated 09.04.2012 in O.S.No.111/2006, the said

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶48

amount was directed to be credit to CCD Account on 26.06.2012.

¶49

2.5 The grievance of the petitioners is that, since the amount so deposited by the respondent-NHAI was credited to CCD Account, petitioners have been deprived of the interest that would have accrued on the said amount. It appears the suit in O.S.No.111/2006, was disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 22.02.2014. Thereafter, a regular appeal in R.A.No.15022/2014 was filed which was also dismissed on 11.11.2014 against which regular second appeal in R.S.A.No.85/2015 was filed which was also disposed of on 10.07.2019.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners on a query by this Court submits that petitioner have now withdrawn the second deposit made by the respondent-NHAI before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in O.S.No.111/2006.

¶51

However, seeking payment of interest from the date of deposit i.e., 11.06.2012, the petitioner filed an above application before the Prl. Civil Judge. By the impugned order

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶54

the said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the

¶55

same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition and also referring to the provisions of 3-H (4) of the Act, 1956 and further relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Ors. Vs. District Magistrate MAU and Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511 : 2023 INSC 606, vehemently submits that the respondent-NHAI has committed grave error in not depositing the amount payable to the petitioners in respect of second part of acquisition as contemplated under Section 3-H of the Act, 1956. He emphatically submits that when the NHAI at the first instance opted to deposit the amount in compliance with the provisions of Section 3-H of the Act, 1956, there is no reason why they chose to deposit the subsequent part of award the amount before the Court in which the suit in O.S.No.111/2006 was pending consideration. He submits that this deliberate error on the part of the respondent-NHAI has deprived the petitioners of their right to receive the interest on the amount so deposited resulting in huge financial loss.

¶57

8 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶59

He submits that both on factual as well as on the legal aspect of the matter the impugned order is unsustainable. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

¶60

of Vinod Kumar and Ors (Supra) to emphasize that the deposit, if any ought to have been made only in terms of Section 3-H of the Act, 1956 and if the deposit is not made thereunder, it cannot be construed as deposit in the eye of law. Hence, he submits that the impugned order be set-aside and the respondent-NHAI be directed to pay the interest from the date of deposit till realization by the petitioners.

¶61

In response, Smt. Shilpa Shah, learned counsel for the respondent-NHAI submits that even in the first instance an application was made to deposit the amount before the Court in which the suit in O.S.No.111/2006 was pending consideration. Since same was consuming time the respondent-NHAI had thought it appropriate to deposit the amount in terms of Section 3-H of the Act, 1956. It is her further submission that when the second round of acquisition was made, an order dated 27.03.2012, was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which is produced by the petitioner as per Annexure-G, in terms of which the Special Land Acquisition Officer taking

¶62

9 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶64

note of the pendency of the proceedings and claim being made by the parties decided to deposit the amount before the Court in which the suit in O.S.No.111/2006 was pending. She submits that the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner herein. She further submits that the deposit made on 11.06.2012 before the Court in which the suit in O.S.No.111/2006 is to the knowledge of the petitioners herein, who have not objected to the same. Instead have allowed the said deposit to be retained in the said matter and have now withdrawn the same after conclusion of the dispute by passing of the judgment and decree in R.S.A.No.85/2015. It is her further submission that the petitioners who had complete knowledge of the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27.03.2012, deposit made on 11.06.2012 have remained silent and after withdrawing the amount have though it appropriate to file application, which is rightly rejected by the Court warranting no interference. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶65

Heard and perused the records.

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶68

There is no dispute of the fact that the in terms of Section 3-H of the Act, 1956, should there be any dispute with regard to apportionment of the compensation payable to the land loosers, the competent authority shall deposit the amount before the Prl. Civil Judge of the locality. The said Section reads as under:

¶69

''3H. Deposit and payment of amount.—(1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land.

¶70

(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto.

¶71

(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them.

¶72

(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

¶73

(5) Where the amount determined under section 3G by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine percent, per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 3D till the date of the actual deposit thereof.

¶74

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶75

(6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section

¶76

(5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit.''

¶77

The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

¶78

of Vinod Kumar and Ors (Supra) is in the circumstances of

¶79

non depositing of the award amount under Section 3-H of the Act, 1956. However, the facts obtained in the said case is distinguishable from the facts at hand. In the instant case as seen the acquisition of the subject property had been made on two occasions. When the acquisition was made in respect of the portion of land at the first occasion, the compensation payable to the land owners was sought to be deposited before the Court in which the suit for partition was pending and in this regard an application was also made by the respondent-NHAI seeking to implead themselves therein. However since, according to the learned counsel for the respondent the same was taking time, in order to avoid any delay, the deposit was

¶80

made under Section 3-H of the Act, 1956 before the Reference Court. On the second occasion, when the additional land was

¶81

12 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶83

acquired, the compensation amount of Rs.2,30,75,298/- was determined and while dealing with the issue of depositing the amount, the respondent-SLAO has conducted the proceedings as seen at Annexure-G to the writ petition and as order dated 27.03.2012 has been passed in this regard, whereby Land Acquisition Officer has deemed it appropriate to deposit the amount before the Court in which the suit for partition was pending consideration. Accordingly, the amount has been deposited by way of a cheque on 08.06.2012 as seen at the entries made in the order sheet in O.S.No.250/2000 (new number O.S.No.111/2006) which reads as under:

¶84

''The Special L.A.O, National Highway Authority of India, Hebbal, Bengaluru has submitted a letter along with cheque bearing No.379332 dated 09.04.2012 for Rs.2,30,75,298/- in this case, prays for orders.''

¶85

On the deposit so made the Court has directed the amount to

¶86

be credited to CCD Account.

¶87

On a query by this Court, as to whether there is any provision with regard to automatic payment of interest, even if the amount was deposited strictly in compliance to Section 3-H of the Act, 1956, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such provision. However, he hasten to add that in

¶88

13 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶90

the first instance the amount was deposited in UCO Bank in an interest bearing account, which benefit has been deprived in view of deposit wrongly made before the Court in which O.S.No.111/2006 was pending consideration.

¶91

Learned counsel for the respondent-NHAI points out to the reasons assigned in the impugned order, wherein the Trial Court at paragraph No.20 has given the following reasons with regard to deposit of the amount in the interest bearing account/nationalized account.

¶92

''20. It is not out of place hereto mention that, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has issued the General Circular No.15/2014, dated 02.09.2014 by directing the Presiding Officers of Sub-ordinate Courts in the State to deposit the amounts in L.A.C. Cases in the F.D. in Nationalized Banks. The Ex.P17 shows that, the Presiding Officer of this Court has Ordered to keep the compensation amount in C.C.D. by his Order dated 08.06.2012. The General Circular No.15/2014 was issued on 02.09.2014 which is subsequent to the Order of the Presiding Officer dated 08.06.2012 and therefore, the petitioners themselves were at fault in not applying for deposit of compensation amount in the F.D. from C.C.D. and therefore, they are not entitled for any interest as sought for in the petition. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in the Negative. ''

¶93

Though there appears to be an anomaly in the

¶94

respondent-NHAI depositing the amount, in that, instead of depositing the amount as contemplated under Section 3-H of

¶95

14 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶97

the Act, 1956, the respondent-Authorities have deemed it appropriate to deposit the amount before the Court in which the parties are litigating with regard to their respective rights of

¶98

the property, in the absence of any statutory provision providing for accrual of the interest, the said anomaly alone cannot be a ground for the petitioners to claim interest from the date of deposit till realization. More particularly, for the reasons referred to at paragraph No.20 of the impugned order which is extracted hereinabove. Petitioners were aware of the orders passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as per Annexure-G. They were also aware of deposit made by the respondent-SLAO on 11.02.2012. They were also aware of the proceedings in suit in O.S.No.111/2006 directing the amount to be deposited in CCD Account. However they have not taken any action either to seeking deposit of amount in the interest bearing account or withdrawing said the amount.

¶99

Thus the petitioners are not aggrieved by deposit made by the respondent-NHAI before the Court in which the suit was pending, but their grievance is that deposit did not bear the interest.

¶100

15 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:1442 WP No. 920 of 2024

¶102

No fault can be found with the respondent-NHAI for the amount not being deposited in the interest bearing account. As already noted, there is no provision under Section 3-H of the Act, 1956, that if the amount is deposited, the same shall also bear the interest thereon and in the absence of any statutory provision providing for mandatory payment of interest on the deposit, so made, though there is anomaly as noted hereinabove, this Court do not see any reasons to interfere with the order impugned under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian. The order passed by the Trial Court as the same does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularities. Accordingly, petition is dismissed .

¶103

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶104

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt Kusumalatha M J v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kusumalatha M J v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Prema a R Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Bangalore Kidney Foundation Vs Bangalore Development Authority (Bda)

Sri B S Jayaram Vs the State of Karnataka

Adaveeshaiah. H. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Radhika Advani Vs State of Karnataka