Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Suresh D. Bankapur & Ors.Etc. vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2018
Bench: Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2380-2383 OF 2017
SURESH D. BANKAPUR & ORS. ETC. ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC. ... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
C.A.NOS.2559, 3870, 2445, 2465, 2464 OF 2017
C.A.NO……………………/2018 @ SLP(C)NO…………………………/2018
@ DIARY NO.38198/2017
C.A.NO……………………/2018 @ SLP(C)NO…………………………/2018
@ DIARY NO.38201/2017
C.A.NO……………………/2018 @ SLP(C)NO…………………………/2018
@ DIARY NO.38338/2017
O R D E R
C.A.NOS.2380-2383, 2559, 2445, 2465, 2464, C.A.NO. ……………………/2018 @ SLP(C)NO…………………………/2018 @ DIARY NO. 38198/2017, C.A.NO……………………/2018 @ SLP(C)NO……………………./ 2018 @ DIARY NO.38201/2017 & C.A.NO.……………………/2018 @ SLP(C)NO…………………………/2018 @ DIARY NO.38338/2017 :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.Signature Not Verified2. Delay condoned and leave granted in all the special Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2018.02.01 16:38:41 IST Reason:
leave petitions.
3. The central issue involved in the appeals is :
whether after entering into an agreement, the appellants 2 are entitled to further amount of solatium and interest.
The High Court has declined solatium and interest in view of the terms of agreement entered into between the parties.
In the agreement it was made clear that the amount offered was total compensation to be received by the appellants and they have also waived their rights to claim higher compensation before the Civil Court. Thus, they have accepted compensation determined without protest and by way of agreement. In similar situations, this Court, in Ranveer Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2016) 14 SCC 191; and in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Daya Shamji Bhai & Ors., reported in (1995) 5 SCC 746, has denied the solatium and interest as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, appellants are not entitled to solatium and interest.
4. It is also not in dispute that possession had been taken earlier, approximately three years before, whereas agreement had been entered into in the year 2010. As a matter of fact, though the appellants cannot be said to be entitled to solatium and interest in view of the agreement that had been entered into, but since the possession had been taken at an earlier point of time, they would be entitled for damages for the interregnum period, i.e., from the date of taking decision till the date when the amount was paid to them under the agreement.
5. This Court, in the case of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool Dist. Vs. M. Ramakrishna Reddy (D) By 3 LRs., reported in 2011 (11) SCC 648, has laid down that though interest was not payable but damages can be measured and awarded in such cases. Thus, in the instant cases, we deem it appropriate to exercise our inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant damages @15% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date the possession was taken till the amount was paid.
6. Let the amount of interest be worked out and paid to the appellants within two months from today. In all the appeals, order passed by the High Court is modified accordingly.
5. With the above modification, the appeals stand disposed of along with all the pending applications. C.A.NO.3870/2017 :
1. We find no merit in this appeal. The civil appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
...........................J. [ARUN MISHRA] ...........................J. [AMITAVA ROY] New Delhi;
30th January, 2018.
4
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).2380-2383/2017 SURESH D. BANKAPUR & ORS.ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing addl. documents and exemption from filing O.T.) WITH C.A. No. 2559/2017 (IV-A)-(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing addl. documents and exemption from filing O.T.) C.A. No. 3870/2017 (IV-A) C.A. No. 2445/2017 (IV-A)-(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing addl. documents and exemption from filing O.T.) C.A. No. 2465/2017 (IV-A)-(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing addl. documents and exemption from filing O.T.) C.A. No. 2464/2017 (IV-A) SLP(C)……………………...Diary No(s).38198/2017 (IV-A) SLP(C)……………………………Diary No(s).38201/2017 (IV-A) SLP©…………………………...Diary No(s).38338/2017 (IV-A) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing O.T., permission to place addl. facts and grounds and peermission to file addl. documents) Date : 30-01-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s)/Petitioner CA 2380-83, Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil,Sr.Adv. D.Nos.38198, Mr. Anand A. Magadum,Adv. 38201 & 38338 Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde,AOR and for resp. Ms. Taherabi Kalebudde,Adv. in connected Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta,AOR matters Mr. B.S. Kivadasannavar,Adv.5
CA 3870 Ms. Kiran Suri,Sr.Adv.
Mr. S.J. Amith,Adv.
Mr. Aishwarya Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Krishna Kumar,Adv.
For Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,AOR CA 2559,2445, Mr. Nishanth Patil,Adv. 2465 & 2464 Mr. Prasanna Mohan,Adv.
Mr. Anup Jain,AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Kiran Suri,Sr.Adv. CA 2380 Mr. Nishanth Patil,Adv.
Mr. Prasanna Mohan,Adv.
Mr. S.J. Amith,Adv.
Mr. Aishwarya Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Anup Jain,AOR State Mr. Devadatt Kamat,AAG Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,AOR Mr. Rajesh Inamdar,Adv.
Mr. Javedur Raman,Adv.
Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi,Adv.
Mr. Aditya Bhat,Adv.
Ms. Tarannum Cheema,Adv.
Ms. Hiral Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Smrithi Suresh,Adv.
For Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A.NOS.2380-2383, 2559, 2445, 2465, 2464, C.A.NO. ……………………/ 2018 @ SLP(C)NO…………………………/2018 @ DIARY NO. 38198/2017, C.A.NO. ……………………/2018 @ SLP(C)NO……………………./2018 @ DIARY NO.38201/2017 & C.A.NO.……………………/2018 @ SLP(C)NO……………………/2018 @ DIARY NO.38338/ 2017 :.
Delay condoned and leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.6
C.A.NO.3870/2017 :
The civil appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(Sarita Purohit) (Jagdish Chander)
Court master Branch Officer
(Signed order is placed on the file)