Karnataka High Court
Smt B L Chandramathi W/O B.S.Lingaraju vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 January, 2012
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bet {(SRAG.S INDIRESH, AGA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5" DAY OF JANUARY, 2012. -
BEFORE
WRIT PETITION No.20214/2010 (GM-cec) - : 7 -
BETWEEN: -
SMT.B.L.CHANDRAMATHI,
W/O B.S.LINGARAJU, MAJOR,
R/A. GUDUGALALE VIL UAGE?,
SHAN IVARSANTHE POST, .
SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU: DISTRICT.
BY HER P.A.HOLDER B.S.LINGARAG -.
S/O. LATE B. SH. ANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 7.1: YEARS
No. 79, 28 MLAIN, KANAKA LAYOUT".
KADRENAHALLI, BSK I] STAGE
BANG/ ALORE 5G 007 76:
..PETITIONER
(BY SRLM. sr VAPPA, SR. JADV) ,
AND:
od. THE DEPUTY 'COMMISSIONER,
". KODAGU DISTRICT, FORT
MADIKERI - ~ 571201
9. THE ASSIST! NE COMMISSIONER
~ARD THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KODAGU SUB-DIVISION,
MADIKERI- 571 201.
me ...RESPONDENTS
"THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
_ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF
"SHE LEARNED CIVI JUDGE (SR.DN), MADIKERI IN
EX.No.123/95 DT. 10.2.2010 VIDE ANNX-D ORDERING THE
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER A SUM OF
RS. 13.48,252.24 WITH FURTHER INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
rk
15% FROM 11.2.2010, INSTEAD OF THE AMOUNT TO WHICH
THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RS.37,86,688.48 WITH
FURTHER INTEREST FROM 30.6. 2002 ON RS.5,49,052/- UN FIL
FULL PAYMENT BY THE RESPONDENTS AND DIREC®. "THE.
RESPONDENT TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNT AS PER MEMO OF
CALCULATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. .
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING (B- GROUP) THIS .
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOL, A Owl! vO
ORDER
Petitioner having lost her: land due. to compulsory acquisition by the State was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.28,500/- "being "market "value of the acquired land "measuring, L "gare 56 cents and Rs.21 ,000/- - towards cost of wiring fence and concrete polls by the Land Acquisition Officer. In L.A.No.9/86 before the Civil 'Court. "under Section 18 of the Land . Acquis sition Act: 1894 for short 'LA Act', by Judgment . . and. 'decte ee: dt, 9.2.1990 rejected the reference while "iesetlowind R82 21,000/- towards cost of wire fence and ~ concrete polls put up by the petitioner under the item of damages sustained due to alleged severance of land
- as the petitioner purchased the land on 5.2.1976, after possession of the land was taken during the year 1956, though the preliminary notification under Section 4{ ) of the LA Act was issued on 25.1.1983. That Judgment and decree when called in question in MFA 511 / 199 _ a Division Bench of this Court by order dt.. 7. 4) 199 is Annexure-A observed that the petitioner had put Seip the | | wire fence subsequent to the publication of preliminary .
notification and any improvements effected on 'the lend cannot be taken into consideration since investment of capital in the land proposed to be acquired the land owner does so at his own risk. ~.
2. The. Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal in the following terms: ;
TT he. appeal is allowed. While affirming the market Vv vaiue 'of the land at Rs.28,500/-, the ON . dlainiant shall be entitled to 30% solatium on the market value and interest on the enhanced = market value at 9% for one year from the date of his possession by the L.A.O and thereafter at the
- rate of 15% p.a., till payment. The claimant is
-- further entitled to additional amount at 12% per | - annum on the market value under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The appellant is entitled to costs in this appeal."
pA The State Government having failed to comply with the. order of the Division Bench of this court led to the mo petitioner filing Execution Petition No.123/95 before the Civil Judge, Madikeri claiming Rs.24.21,360.10 based on a memo of calculation. 1%, appears that m the Execution proceeding beth the petitioner aiid the State filed their respective revised mienio of _calculation, whence the Executing Court by-ordérsat. 10/2/2010 Annexure-D° rejected the. memo of calculation of both the parties. ane. maite its "own "calculation entitling the petitioner to Rs.13,48,252:24 with interest at 15% p.a. from 10/2/20! On.
oS. Petitioner aggrieved by not ordering interest at 9% p:d. of Rs.21,000/- from 10/2/1956 to 9/2/1957 'and 15% from 10.2.1957 to 23.9.1986, has presented me -this petition.
4. Although Sri.M.Sivappa, learned Sr.counsel for the petitioner submits that Rs.21.000/- being the cost of wire fence and concrete poles for severance of the land was expended by the petitioner and therefore entitled to the said sum, I am afraid that submission iss, _ unacceptable. The Division Bench in the order dt.
7.4.1994 Annexure-A while allowing petitioner's appeal .
affirmed the market value of the land at Rs.28;500/ -, declined to interfere with the Judgment and, award of the Civil Court rejecting Rs.21,000/--towards cost of wire fence and coneréte poles the petitioner is not entitled to the said claim: . ¥t must be noticed that the executing souit adtied Rs.21,000/ - being the value of the fence, though, without interest, which otherwise the petitioner was net. entitled to. In the circumstances, no "exception: can be taken to the reasons, findings and 'conclusions arrived at by the Executing court in the order impugned calling for interference.
"In the result, petition devoid of merit is rejected. Sd/-
In. J UDGE