Karnataka High Court
Sri Prasad Reddy vs The Deputy Commissioner on 21 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7261
WP No. 785 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 785 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRASAD REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE NARAPPA,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/A CHIKKAMARALI VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. L. LANKESH, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. R. THYAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARMALINGAM BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE - 562 101.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. B.H. RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE DODDAHANUMEGOWDA,
R/A BIJJAVARA VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 101.
3. SRI. BONTHA SIVA RAMI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7261
WP No. 785 of 2016
4. SRI. BONTHA SUBBA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
BOTH ARE SONS OF
BONTHA KESHAVA REDDY,
BOTH AE RESIDENTS OF
MUNNING VILLAGE,
KOLLIPURA MANDAL VILLAGE,
GUNTTUR DISTRICT,
ANDRAPRADESH - 500 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1;
R2 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED,
VIDE ORDER DATED 10.02.2023,
NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS AND JUDGMENT IN REVISION PETITION NO.314/2005
DATED 27.11.2015 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner who participated in a public auction
conducted on 19.12.2003 is before this Court calling in
question the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District at Annexure 'B' dated 27.06.2005
NC: 2024:KHC:7261
and the orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
in Revision.No.314/2005.
2. The petitioner participated in the public auction
while complying with the required pre-condition. The
petitioner bid for a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- and the
petitioner was declared the successful bidder. It is also not
disputed at the hands of the respondents that the
petitioner deposited the bid amount of Rs.1,65,000/-
within the stipulated period. However, subsequently the
Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order on
27.06.2005 setting aside the auction sale while directing
the refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner along
with interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum. The
petitioner was aggrieved of the orders passed by the
Deputy Commissioner and therefore he approached the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal however
upheld the orders of the Deputy Commissioner on the
ground that the value of the property was not properly
assessed and on the basis of the information available on
NC: 2024:KHC:7261
record, the property was valued at more than
Rs.9,00,000/-, while the auction was concluded in favour
of the petitioner herein at the rate of Rs.1,65,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Additional Government Advocate draw the
attention of this Court to the daily orders passed by this
Court, more particularly the order dated 07.09.2023
wherein this court recorded the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not press
the challenge raised to the impugned orders passed by the
Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal. However, the petitioner is seeking refund of the
said amount of Rs.1,65,000/- along with interest
calculated at the rate of 5% p.a. in terms of Section 176 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The matter was
adjourned at the request of learned Additional
Government Advocate to seek instructions and make
submissions.
NC: 2024:KHC:7261
4. Today, learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that as per the wish of the petitioner the
respondents prepared a Demand Draft for a sum of
Rs.1,65,000/- and the same was handed over to the
learned counsel for the petitioner on the previous date of
hearing on 03.11.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner
however submits that since the amount was not paid along
with the interest as directed by the Deputy Commissioner,
the petitioner has not encashed the Demand Draft.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate
however submits that since the petitioner was not satisfied
with the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and
he approached the tribunal and thereafter he has come
before this Court, the petitioner should not be permitted to
claim the interest from the period after the orders were
passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
6. There is sufficient force in the submission of
learned Additional Government Advocate. However, the
respondent-authorities cannot raise any quarrel in respect
NC: 2024:KHC:7261
of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the
fact that the petitioner was entitled for interest calculated
from the date when the amount was deposited till the
orders were passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition
stands disposed of recording the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the Additional
Government Advocate. The respondent-authorities namely
the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Bangaluru
Rural District shall pay the petitioner the interest
calculated on Rs.1,65,000/- from the date when it was
deposited till 27.06.2005, i.e., when the date which the
Deputy Commissioner had passed the order at Annexure
'B'.
8. It has been submitted by the learned Additional
Government Advocate that the Demand Draft which was
earlier given to the petitioner has been revalidated and the
petitioner may re-present the Demand Draft and get the
same encashed into his account. Insofar as the payment of
NC: 2024:KHC:7261
interest is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District shall ensure that the payment is
made in terms of the directions issued by this Court as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PK
CT: BHK
