Karnataka High Court
Vijalaxmi W/O Late Suresh Jituri vs The Assistant Commissioner on 8 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256
WP No. 100508 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO.100508/2024(LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. VIJALAXMI
W/O. LATE SURESH JITURI,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD/BUSINESS,
R/O: 33, 39 APPORVA NAGAR,
MANJUNATH NAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI - 580 009.
2. SMT. ARUNA
W/O. RAJESH BURBURE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: H.NO. 37,
PURUSHOTTAM NAGAR,
VIDYANAGAR NAGAR,
Digitally
HUBBALLI - 580 009.
signed by
MANJANNA E
Location: 3. SMT. SUVARNA
High Court of
Karnataka W/O VINAY JARTARGHAR
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: EUREKA COLONY,
KUSUGAL ROAD,
HUBBALLI - 580 009.
4. JAAYACHAND
S/O. TUKARAMSA JITTURI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GURUKRUPA,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
MANJUNATH NAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580 009,
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B. S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256
WP No. 100508 of 2024
AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
AND SLAO,
DHARWAD - 580 001,
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 14-12-2023 SO FAR AS GRANTING LIBERTY TO RECOVER
THE EXCESS DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS. 55,745/- FROM PETITIONERS
AND ORDER OF DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.
175/2017 PASSED BY II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DHARWAD VIDE ORDER DATED 14-12-2023 PRODUCED VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are seeking issuance of writ in the nature
of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 14.12.2023
passed in E.P.No.175/2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Dharwad, produced as per Annexure-C.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.B.S.Sangati, appearing
for the petitioners and Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
the petitioners are the claimants in LAC No.56/2013 on the file
of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, (for short,
'the Reference Court'). The Reference Court has passed the
award fixing compensation at Rs.1,000/- per square feet in
respect of the acquired land. In addition to that, it is held that
the claimants are entitled for additional market value at 12%
per annum on the enhanced market value, from the date of
taking possession of the property till the date of award.
4. The grievance of the petitioners as highlighted by
the learned counsel of the petitioners is that even though the
Reference Court awarded additional market value at 12% per
annum, on the enhanced market value from the date of taking
possession of the property till the date of passing of the award,
the executing Court proceeded to determine the compensation
with additional market value at 12% per annum on the
additional market value from the date of preliminary
notification till the date of passing of the award. Therefore, it is
his contention that the executing Court gone beyond the award
passed by the Reference Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256
5. The materials on record disclose that 4(1)
notification was issued on 01.07.2009 and award was passed
on 02.07.2012. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the possession of the property was taken on
06.10.1995. The award passed by the Reference Court is
produced as per Annexure-A. It discloses that the petitioners
were held entitled to get additional market value at 12% per
annum on such enhanced market value, from the date of
preliminary notification till the date of passing of the award or
the date of taking possession of the property, whichever is
earlier.
6. Relying on this portion of the award, the learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that since the date of
taking possession of the property was on 06.10.1995, the
additional market value should have been granted from
06.10.1995. Admittedly, there is no such award passed by the
Reference Court. The award specifically states that the
additional market value at 12% per annum on such enhanced
market value from the date preliminary notification, till the date
of passing of the award or the date of taking possession of the
property whichever is earlier, is to be paid.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256
7. As per Section 23 of the land Acquisition Act, 1984
(for short, 'the Act') several matters are to be taken into
consideration in determining the compensation such as (i)
Market value of the land as on the date of 4(1) notification, (ii)
Damage sustained by the person interested including the
standing crops and trees, (iii) The damage caused to the
person interest at the time of taking possession of the land, iv)
Damages so caused by reason of acquisition injuriously
affecting the other property belonging to the person interested
v) Damage caused due to person interest compelled to change
his residence or place his business etc and v) Damage if any,
bonafide resulting from diminishing of profits of the land.
8. As per Section 23(1-A), in addition to the market
value of the land as stated above, the Court also required to
award 12% P.A. interest on such market value for a period
commencing on and from the date of publication of the
notification under Section 4(1) notification, in respect of the
such land to the date of the award of the collector or the date
of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
9. As per Section 23(2) of the Act, in addition to the
market value of the land as stated above, the Court is required
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256
to award 30% of the market value in consideration of
compulsory nature of acquisition. The Reference Court has
taken into consideration of all these requirements of law and
awarded compensation. Admittedly, the award passed by the
Reference Court was never challenged by the petitioners to
seek grant of additional market value from the date of taking
possession of the property till the date of 4(1) notification.
10. I have gone through the impugned order passed by
the executing Court produced as per Annexure-C, in
E.P.No.175/2017. The executing Court considered all these
facts and circumstance, in the light of the statutory provisions
calculated 12% additional market value on the enhanced
market value from 01.07.2009 i.e. the date on which the
preliminary notification was issued, till 02.07.2012 i.e. the date
of passing of the award. I do not find any illegality and
perversity in the said order passed by executing Court.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners even though
contended that the possession of the property was taken on
06.10.1995 i.e. much earlier to the passing of the preliminary
notification and he has entitled for additional market value from
the said date, failed to draw the attention of the Court to the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6256
judgment or award passed by the Reference Court in which it is
held that the claimant is entitled for additional market value
from such dates as referred to by him. Under such
circumstance, I do not find any merit in the contentions taken
by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
AC/CT-ASC
