Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Rehabilitation And ... vs Smt. Jayashree A. Kotti W/O. Aravind ... on 19 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: ILR2007KAR1462, 2007(3)KARLJ219, 2007 (4) ABR (NOC) 653 (KAR.) = 2007 (3) AIR KAR R 222 (DB), 2007 A I H C 1834, 2007 (3) AIR KAR R 222, (2007) 3 KANT LJ 219, (2008) 3 LANDLR 552, (2007) 2 LACC 329, (2007) 3 ICC 524, (2007) 4 RECCIVR 589, (2007) 56 ALLINDCAS 778 (KAR), (2007) 4 CIVLJ 438
Bench: S.R. Bannurmath, A.S. Bopanna
JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.08.2003 whereunder following the decision in W.P.Nos. 27096-107/2003 dated 18.07.2003 directing the appellants herein to pay interest on the compensation awarded from the date of award till the date of payment of said amount, the present writ appeal is filed by the Government. There is no much dispute so far as the facts are concerned. The petitioners whose lands were acquired and submerged in the Almatti project had approached this Court in the said writ petition seeking entitlement for award of interest from the date of taking over possession of the residential building which was not paid to them.
2. In this regard, considering the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madras v. K.N. Shanmugha Mudaliar and Ors. and on the basis of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Government, the learned single Judge held that the petitioners are entitled for award of interest on the compensation from the date of award till the date of payment. As there was no material to show exactly on what date the possession was taken, the learned single Judge held respondents were entitled for interest from the date of taking possession.
3. In the present appeal, Snit. V. Vidya learned AGA submitted that even though there is no material to show on what date the possession was taken and also the fact that in Section 28-A proceedings, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had erroneously noted the date of taking possession as 13.8.1997, which according to the learned AGA happens to be date of passing of award, the learned single Judge has committed an error in awarding the interest from the date of award in question. In this regard, she has relied upon a circular said to have been issued by the State dated 5.11.2003 whereunder it is stated that as the Government Machinery is not providing correct information to the Courts as to the exact date of taking possession in respect of Almatti project and hence the date of taking possession should be taken as 27.03.1998 on which date, the land stood actually submerged under water. Hence the learned AGA contends that in the absence of the records as to the possession, the learned single Judge ought to have taken 27.03.1998 as the starting point of date for calculating interest on the award and in not doing so, the impugned award requires reconsideration.
4. On perusal of the records made available and especially the noting of the learned single Judge that it was the Government Advocate himself who did not dispute the entitlement of the respondents as to the interest from the date of award, in the absence of date of taking possession and as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madras v. K.N. Shanmugha Mudaliar and Ors., we find that the learned single Judge was justified in awarding the interest from the date of award. It is to be noted that much reliance is placed on the circular dated 5.11.2003. This circular is only an internal correspondence for the sake of convenience of the Government officials. This will not replace the mandatory provisions of law under the Land Acquisition Act. The question of the date to be fixed for calculating the interest is either the starting point i.e., from the date of actual possession or from the date of award. Since no date of actual taking possession is available, the only alternate is to grant interest from the date of award. As noted above, the circular is of no use to the appellant as this is not based on any provision of law or rational basis. Since the circular has no basis of law, we cannot consider it. Hence even on reconsideration of the entire material we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge. As such, the appeal stands dismissed.