Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Electricity Board vs Smt Raziya Begum on 2 March, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.686 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
SUPRETENDENT ENGINEER
SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION
SHIVAMOGGA -577 202.
ALSO AT THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD
SHANTHA MANSION II FLOOR
GANDHINAGAR MAIN ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. UTTUR PADMAVATI SURESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT RAZIYA BEGUM
W/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202.
2. SRI MOHAMMAD SALIM
S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O TEVARACHATNAHALLI
SHANTHINAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.
2
3. SRI MOHAMMED KALEEM
S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O II CROSS, NEAR GOUSIYA MASJID,
NANJUNDESHWARA NAGAR,
NANDHINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE NORTH - 560096.
4. SRI MOHAMMED NADEM
S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577202.
5. SRI MOHAMMED WASSEM @ WASEEM PASHA
S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577202
6. SRI MOHAMMED AZEEM
S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O MAIN ROAD,
MILLAGHATTA,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577202
7. SRI FAHEEMUDDIN
S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O MAIN ROAD,
MILLAGHATTA,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577202.
8. SMT SHAKIRA BEGUM @ SHAKEER BEGUM
W/O LATE HIDAYATHULLA,
S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
3
R/O SHANTHINGAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.
9. SMT. TAHERA BEGUM @
TARAHABEGUAM @ TAHEERABEGAM,
W/O SHAFIFULLA,
D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O NO 97, AZAD ROAD,
3RD CROSS, SAGAR TALUK - 577401.
10. SMT. NASIRA BEGAM @ NAZEERA BEGUM
W/O MOHAMMED SAB,
D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O 24-3, MAIN ROAD,
SORAB TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577429.
11. SMT MUNZIRA BEGUM @ MUNZEERA BEGUM
W/O FARHAN BEGAM,
D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O P AND T COLONY,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.
12. SMT MASTURA BEGUM
W/O SYED SAHAIL,
D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O GANGAPARMESHWARI ROAD,
SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA 577401.
13. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VARADARAJ R HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 12
4
SMT. ROOPA K R, HCGP FOR R13)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN EXPARTE NO.41 OF 2015 DATED 01ST
OCTOBER, 2021 ANNEXURE-N ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Corporation
challenging the order dated 01st October, 2021 passed in
Execution Petition No.41 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Civil
Judge and CJM, Shivamogga. Perusal of the writ petition papers
would indicate that respondents 1 to 12 are the owners in
possession of the land in question which was acquired by the PR-
Corporation by issuance of preliminary notification dated 31st
January, 1994 under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Land
Acquisition Act (for short hereinafter referred to as "Act") and
thereafter, final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act came
to be issued. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that
the Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 18th
August, 1995 determining the compensation at Rs.60,314/- per
acre in respect of the land in question. Feeling aggrieved by the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, claimants preferred LAC No.6 of 1993-94
before the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The Reference Court, by its judgment and
award dated 19th January, 1999, enhanced the compensation
from Rs.60,314/- per acre to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. It is the
grievance of the claimants that the petitioner-Corporation has
not paid the amount and as such, the claimants filed Execution
Petition No.41 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court. Before the
trial Court, both the claimants and the petitioner-Corporation
have filed memo of calculation and the Executing Court, taking
into consideration the memo of calculation filed by the decree
holder so also the judgment debtor, by its order dated 01st
October, 2021, has held that judgment debtor has to pay a sum
of Rs.10,03,643/- as on 07th December, 2020. Being aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner-Corporation has preferred this writ
petition.
I have heard Smt. Uttur Padmavati Suresh, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation; Sri Varadaraj
R. Havaldar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 12
and Smt. Roopa K R, learned High Court Government Pleader,
for Respondent No.13.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation
invited the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the
Execution Court, so also the finding recorded with regard to the
memo of calculation filed by the petitioner-Corporation and
submitted that the Executing Court has not considered the
memo of calculation filed by the petitioner-Corporation and
accordingly, the petitioner-Corporation has suffered the order.
Per contra, Sri Varadaraj R. Havaldar, learned counsel
appearing for the claimants and the learned High Court
Government Pleader sought to justify the impugned order.
In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding
recorded by the Execution Court. The relevant portion of the
impugned order reads as under:
"On perusal of the memo of calculation produced
by the Decree holder and the judgment debtor, it is see
that the judgment debtor has not calculated the solatium
and additional market value on the enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre."
It is evident from the writ papers that as per Annexure-M
the petitioner-Corporation has calculated 30% solatium on the
enhanced amount and also paid 12% additional market value.
In view of the fact that the judgment debtor/petitioner-
Corporation has calculated the solatium and the additional
market value as stated above, I am of the view that the
Execution Court has not considered the same while passing the
impugned order. Accordingly, order dated 01st October, 2021 is
liable to be set aside directing the Execution Court to re-consider
the issue afresh after considering the memo of calculation
produced by both the judgment debtor and the Decree holder
and in terms of the judgment and award passed in LAC No.09 of
1996. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. Writ Petition allowed;
2. Order dated 01st October, 2021 passed in
Execution Petition No.41 of 2015 by the Principal
Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Shivamogga is set
aside;
3. Matter is remanded to the Executing Court with
a direction to reconsider the issue afresh and
pass appropriate orders, within an outer limit of
four weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order;
4. In the event if the Execution Court comes to a
conclusion that the petitioner-Corporation is
liable to pay in excess of the memo of
calculation filed therein, petitioner-Corporation
be directed to pay the difference amount at the
earliest and within the time frame.
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
