Karnataka High Court
Vaijinath S/O Annappa And Anr vs The Secretary To Govt. Of Karnataka & Ors on 22 July, 2014
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
WP.No.104415/2013 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. VAIJANATH S/O ANNAPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: GULLAHALLI, TQ: ALAND,
DIST: GULBARGA.
2. VISHWANATH S/O ANNAPPA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: GULLAHALLI, TQ: ALAND,
DIST: GULBARGA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H.M.PATEL GULHALLI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICE, VALMIKI BUILDING,
BELUR-BELAGAVI ROAD,
DHARWAD-580011.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
M & MIP, GULBARGA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA)
WP.No.104415/13
2
This Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus
directing the respondent No.2 pay interest @ 9% for one year
thereafter 15% per annum, till realization on the Addl. Market
value of 50,712/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve
Only) as per Annexure-A & B.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus against the 2nd respondent - beneficiary of the acquisition to pay interest at 9% for the first year and 15% for subsequent years, till the realization of the additional market value of `50,712/- as per the award dated 21.12.2001 passed in LAC No.1254/1997 confirmed in appeal by this Court in MFA.No.2764/2002 disposed on 07.10.2003.
2. Petitioner No.1 was claimant in LAC No.1254/1997. His land was acquired for the benefit of 2nd respondent. An award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 13.02.1995 fixing the market value of the lands at `9,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, he had sought and secured reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for the short 'the Act') to the Civil Court. The Civil Court WP.No.104415/13 3 enhanced the market value and fixed it at `47,400/- per acre to the acquired land comprised in Sy. No.50 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas situated at Gulhalli Village in Aland Taluk of Gulbarga District. The operative portion of order passed by the Reference Court reads as under:-
"The reference is partly allowed with costs.
Claimant is entitled to get market value at the rate of Rs.47,400/- per acre to his acquired land in Sy.No.50 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas situated at Gulhalli Village in Aland Taluka of Gulbarga District.
Claimant is entitled for 30% solatium on the enhanced market value.
Claimant is entitled for addl. market value at 12% p.a. on the enhanced market value U/Sec.23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act from the date of notification U/Sec.4(1) of the Act till the date of award i.e. 4-2-1993 to 13-2-1995.
Claimant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of 1 year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of realisation on the enhanced market value and 30% solatium thereon.WP.No.104415/13 4
Compensation, if any, already paid shall be deducted and balance shall be deposited in Court within 3 months from the date of this award.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.100/- in each case.
Draw award accordingly."
In the award passed by the Civil Court, while holding that the claimant was entitled for 30% solatium and additional market value of 12% on the enhanced market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, interest was awarded only on the enhanced market value and solatium payable. No interest was awarded on the additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer preferred an appeal against this order in MFA.No.2764/2002. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 07.10.2003. Petitioners have received compensation amount along with interest as awarded. Execution Petition in E.P.No.98/2002 was filed by the petitioners seeking interest on the additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
WP.No.104415/135
4. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that the said Execution Petition has been dismissed for default. One more Execution Petition has been filed in E.P.No.4/2014 and the same is pending. In the said Execution Petition also, the relief sought is, for payment of interest on the amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The present writ petition is filed seeking the very same relief.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the judgment of the Reference Court has been rendered on 22.10.2001 subsequent to the judgment in the case of Sunder Vs Union of India-(2001) 7 SCC 211, petitioners are entitled for payment of interest on the additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act as held by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the said case.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs Union of India-(2006) 8 SCC 457, to contend that petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought because the claim has been impliedly rejected by the WP.No.104415/13 6 Reference Court, in as much as, interest was awarded on the market value and on the solatium only. The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is silent with regard to the award of interest on the amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. He further points out that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the request for interest on additional amount has not been impliedly rejected, the only remedy for the petitioners is to seek interest by way of execution proceeding and not by way of filing a separate writ petition.
7. In the light of the above contentions, I have considered the entire matter at length.
In Gurupreet Singh case, the Apex Court has observed as under in para 54:-
54. One other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in various cases pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree. It is well WP.No.104415/13 7 settled that an execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has been negativated either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court or of the appellate court, the execution court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder2 on the ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. But if the award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate court, and merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder2 and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder2 (19.9.2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the WP.No.104415/13 8 decree-holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question.
8. It is evident from the above that only if the claim for interest has not been rejected either expressly or impliedly, it will be open for the claimant to seek interest on the additional amount. Secondly, interest can be claimed only in the pending executions and not in closed ones and the Executing Court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of judgment in Sunder's case. The Apex Court has further made it clear that the said position in law will not entail any re-appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder. This is the law declared by the Apex Court.
9. In the instant case, petitioners had filed one execution petition and the same has been dismissed for non- prosecution. They have instituted another Execution Petition. Admittedly the same is pending. Parallel to it, they want to seek remedy by filing this writ petition. First of all the writ petition cannot be maintained. Secondly, the petitioners have WP.No.104415/13 9 to fall within the parameters of the decision in Gurupreet Singh's case as laid down in paragraph 54. If this Court pronounces anything on merits at this stage, it will seal the fate of the Claimants even in the execution case pending.
Therefore, I refrain from expressing any opinion in this writ petition on the question of entitlement of the petitioners for interest on the additional amount. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MSR*