Karnataka High Court
Rangappa S/O Venkappa Kuriyavar vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 16 March, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
Writ Petition No.100967/2021 (GM-RES)
Between
Rangappa Son of Venkappa Kuriyavar,
Aged 72, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Tulasigeri, Bagalkot Taluk and District.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. M.M.Patil, Advocate)
And
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
M.P.-3, Dharwad - 580001.
2. The Executive Engineer,
MLBC, Division No.1,
Gaddanakeri - 587102,
Tq. and Dist. Bagalkot.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bagalkot District,
Bagalkot-587101.
... Respondents
(Smt. Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP for R1 & R3;
Notice to R2 dispensed with)
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to (i) call for records in LAC
No.220/2009 pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, etc.,
This writ petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner's land bearing Survey No.137/1 measuring 0 acres 30 guntas situated at Tulsageri village, Bagalkot taluk and District were acquired by the respondents for the purpose of irrigation. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the Reference Court.
2. The claim petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.09.2011 when the petition was set out for evidence. On an application filed under Section 151 of CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal and restoration of petition, the Reference Court passed an order dated 15.05.2020, restoring LAC No.220/2009 to its original file. However, the Reference Court held that, the petitioners/claimants are not entitled for interest 3 on the enhanced compensation if any in original case from the date of registration, till final disposal by the Reference Court. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the Reference Court is not justified in holding that the petitioners are not entitled for interest on enhanced compensation if any in the original case from the date of registration, till final disposal. He submits that, the interest can be deprived only from the date of dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution, till restoration of the petition to its original file.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents justifies the order passed by the Reference Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels and perused the material placed before this Court.
6. The claim petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed on 02.09.2011. On an application filed under Section 151 of CPC, the Reference Court set aside the order dismissing 4 the petition for non-prosecution. However, the petitioners have been denied interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till disposal which is per say illegal and arbitrary. The claimants who have lost their valuable lands cannot be deprived of interest on compensation to which they are legally entitled.
7. In my view, the Reference Court should have restricted the claim of the petitioners for interest period only i.e. from the date of dismissal of the petition till restoration.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot in (LAC) Miscellaneous No.09/2020 is modified. It is held that, the petitioners are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation if any from 02.09.2011 to 15.05.2020.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-