Karnataka High Court
P Muddaiah Dead By Lrs vs The Spl Lao on 2 August, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION Nos.20936-938 OF 2012 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. P.Muddaiah,
Dead by LRs.
1a. H M Anatharamaiah,
S/o Late Muddaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
R/o Heraganahalli village,
Bindiganavile Hobli,
Nagamangala Taluk,
District Mandya.
2. H N Ramegowda,
S/o Ningegowda,
Aged about 53 years,
R/o Jogipura Village,
Bindiganavile Hobli,
Nagamangala Taluk,
District Mandya.
3. J.T.Girigowda,
Dead by LRs.
3a. Smt.Ningamma,
S/o Late J T Girigowda,
Aged about 40 years.
3b. J G Narayanagowda,
S/o Late J T Girigowda,
Aged about 35 years.
2
Both are R/o Heraganahalli Village,
Bindiganavile Hobli,
Nagamangala Taluk,
District Mandya. ... Petitioners
(By Sri Mahantesh S Hosmath, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Spl. LAO
Hemavathi Left Bank Channel
Nagamangala, District Mandya.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Mandya, District Mandya.
3. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building, Bangalore. ... Respondents
(By Sri Ramachandran, Advocate for
Sri M R C Ravi, Advocate for R1
Sri K Krishna, AGA for R2 & R3)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
impugned order passed by the Spl. Land Acquisition
Officer Nagamangala in case No. passed by order
No.LAQ/CRT/28(A)01/08-09 dated 18.1.12 vide Annex-
C and approved order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner Mandya by his order and etc.
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary
hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:
3
ORDER
The petitioners have impugned the first respondent's order, dated 18.01.2012 (Annexure-C) in so far as it pertains to the award of the interest from the date of filing the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 ('the said Act' for short). They have also challenged the second respondent Deputy Commissioner's Official Memorandum, dated 19.04.2012 (Annexure-D) according the approval to the award of interest from the date of making the application under Section 28-A of the said Act.
2. As this case involves no disputed questions of facts and as it involves the pure question of law, the advertance to the facts of the case may not be necessary. The question that falls for my consideration is "Whether the applicant for the re-determination of the amount of compensation under Section 28-A of the said Act is entitled to interest from the date of making the 4 application or from the date of taking the possession of his land?"
3. Heard Sri Mahantesh S.Hosmath, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for Sri M.R.C. Ravi for the respondent Nos.1 and Sri K.Krishna, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3.
4. It is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Sections 28 and 34 of the said Act prescribe that the interest on the compensation be paid from the date on which the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) takes the possession of the land. In this regard, this Court in the case of MEHBOOB SAB AND OTHERS v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BIJAPUR reported in ILR 2003 KAR 3120 has taken the considered view that in all the cases where the application for the re-determination of the award is filed under Section 28-A of the said Act, the applicant is 5 entitled to the interest as per Section 34 of the said Act on the re-determined award in excess of the sum which the Deputy Commissioner awarded as compensation, from the date of taking possession of the property.
5. The Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. PRADEEP KUMARI AND OTHERS reported in CDJ 1995 SC 855 has also held that Section 34 of the said Act would be applicable to the award that is made by the Collector under sub- Section (2) of Section 28-A.
6. Section 28-A is intended and meant for the bus-missing parties, who on account of their poverty, ignorance, etc. have failed to take advantage of the right of reference granted under Section 18 of the said Act. The non-seeker of reference is put on par with the person who has sought the reference and who has got the amounts enhanced. Section 28-A applicant can claim parity not only in getting the compensation but 6 also interest thereon, if a similarly situated land is covered by the Court award.
7. Section 28-A is to be interpreted liberally because it is the object of the legislation to give the benefit of the award passed by the Court to persons whose property is covered by the same preliminary notification, but who did not opt for filing the application for reference under Section 18. The persons covered by the same notification were carved out to be a class for extending the benefits.
8. As the first respondent's impugned order and the second respondent's approval to the same run contrary to the said statutory provisions in so far as they pertain to the awarding of interest from the date of filing the application (29.07.2008), those parts of the impugned orders are quashed. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to award interest from the date on 7 which they were dis-possessed from the lands in question.
9. These petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-