Karnataka High Court
M/S.Navodaya Industrial And Housing ... vs Karnataka Industrial Areas ... on 10 January, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
WP No. 109480 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 109480 OF 2019 (GM-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. NAVODAYA INDUSTRIAL AND HOUSING
DEVELOPERS,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HDMC STALL NO.2,
STATION ROAD, DHARWAD-580001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI. CHANNABASAPPA B. YALIGAR.
CHANNABASAPPA S/O. BASAVANNYAPPA YELIGAR,
AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: PARTNER,
2. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA YELIGAR,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: PARTNER,
3. SHASHIDHAR S/O. CHANNABASAPPA YELIGAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PARTNER,
SERIAL NO. 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF
NAVODAYA NAGAR,
14TH CROSS, DHARWAD-580001.
...PETITIONERS
YASHAVANT
(BY SRI. A.P. MURARI, ADVOCATE)
NARAYANKAR
AND:
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR 1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING,
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXCUTIVE MEMBER,
KIADB, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
WP No. 109480 of 2019
LAKHAMANAHALLI, DHARWAD-580007.
4. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R5;
SMT. SHARMILA PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR
DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH
OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS DIRECTING
THEM TO MAKE PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO THE PETITIONERS ON
RS.2,50,00,000/- (RUPEES TWO CRORES AND FIFTY LAKHS ONLY)
AT BANK RATES, NAMELY, AT 8% PER ANNUM FROM 01.08.2014 TO
01.08.2016 AND FOR FURTHER PERIOD TILL REALIZATION OF FULL
AMOUNT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) To issue Writ or directions in the nature of writ of
mandamus or such other order or directions to the
respondents directing them to make payment of
interest to the petitioners on Rs.2,50,00,000/-
(Rupees two crores and fifty lakhs only) at bank
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
rates, namely, at 8% per annum from 01.8.2014
to 01.8.2016 and for further period till realization
of full amount.
b) Such other order or directions as deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed,
in the ends of justice.
2. The petitioner is in business of formation of layouts,
residential sites and industrial sites. Petitioners 2 and 3 are
the partners of petitioner No.1-firm. On 15.07.2003, the
KIADB, represented by respondent No.2, allotted 50 acres
of agricultural lands in Mummigatti and Narendra villages
to petitioner No.1-firm at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per
acre. However, subsequently, the same came to be
cancelled and the amount came to be forfeited on
05.03.2007. Challenging the same, W.P.No.5019/2007 was
filed by the petitioners, which came to be disposed of on
22.04.2010 directing the petitioners to approach the
appropriate Civil Court. O.S.No.88/2010 was filed before
the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad seeking for
declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctive reliefs.
Vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012, the
cancellation dated 05.03.2007 was declared as non-est,
arbitrary and invalid in law and direction was issued to the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
KIADB to work out the actual area to be developed by the
petitioners excluding the lands allotted to the KPTCL.
3. Pursuant to the said judgment and decree, the petitioners
took up execution proceedings against respondents 1 to 3
in Execution Case No.260/2013 on the file of the Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad. In the meanwhile, the
respondents submitted that RFA No.4166/2013 was filed
challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.88/2010
wherein the Execution case was stayed. Petitioners filed an
application under Section 151 of CPC seeking for
permission to deposit a sum at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/-
per acre for 50 acres of land, which came to be allowed
vide order dated 12.03.2014.
4. Pursuant thereto the petitioners deposited the aforesaid
amount in two installments, each at Rs.1,25,00,000/-,
which deposit is endorsed by the Accounts Sheristedar of
the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad
on 26.04.2014. The petitioners had also made an
application under Section 151 of CPC for investment of the
said amount in interest-bearing fixed deposit in any
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
nationalized bank, which was ordered to be deposited in
fixed deposit vide order dated 01.08.2014.
5. RFA No.4166/2013 was allowed setting aside the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.88/2010 on
26.04.2016. A Special Leave Petition in SLP (Civil)
No.14458/2016 was filed, which was dismissed at
admission stage itself, with liberty to re-approach the
KIADB for fresh allotment.
6. In the meanwhile, on 08.09.2017, the petitioners filed a
memo before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Dharwad seeking to extend the period of the fixed deposit,
and it was at that stage, it was noticed that the concerned
staff of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM had not
deposited the amount in fixed deposit. It is contending
that the non-depositing of the said amount has caused
severe financial loss to the petitioners, inasmuch as the
petitioners have been deprived of interest on the said
amount, the petitioners made an application under Order I
Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the State Government,
represented by Deputy Commissioner, to make payment of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
interest amount by invoking principles of vicarious liability
since the staff of the subordinate Court being government
servants and governed by the KCS Rules. Further
application was also filed seeking direction to the
Government of Karnataka to pay up to date interest
accruable on the aforesaid amount.
7. The said application having been decided on 21.04.2018,
the Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad issued a show-cause
notice to the then Accounts Sheristedar Smt.A.A.Atawale
calling upon her to make good the bank FD interest on a
total sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- for a period commencing
from 01.08.2014 to 01.08.2016. The application filed for
impleading Deputy Commissioner and direction for
payment not having been considered, a further application
was filed by the petitioners. The District Government
Pleader opposed the applications for impleadment and for
directions stating that the staff of the subordinate District
Court would not come under the supervision of Deputy
Commissioner but under the Registrar General, High Court
of Karnataka and as such called upon the petitioners to
implead the Registrar General. In that background, the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid
reliefs contending that not only the Accounts Sheristedar
but the Registrar General would be liable to make payment
of interest amount on account of vicarious liability.
8. In this regard, Sri.A.P.Murari, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners relies upon the decision of
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 10.10.2019 in
W.P.No.7901/2017, more particularly paragraphs 5 (ii)
to (v) and 6 of the judgment, which is taken out for easy
reference.
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the Petition Papers, relief needs to be
granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:
(i) admittedly, the petitioner had deposited a sum of
Rs.77,00,000/- with the Registry of the Court below on
12.01.2009 pursuant to acceptance of his highest bid in
the auction purchase; the Executing Court vide order
dated 21.04.2009 had directed it's Registry to invest the
said amount in an interest earning bank deposit;
subsequently on 1.7.2009, at the request of the
petitioner, the same direction was reiterated; however,
despite these two orders, money of the petitioner was
not invested in the bank deposit and no plausible
explanation is forthcoming for not obeying the court
order;
(ii) during the period between 21.04.2009 and
31.07.2012, if petitioner's money was invested in the
bank, it would have earned huge interest to his
advantage and to the disadvantage of none; this having
not been done by the Registry of the court below,
petitioner is unjustifiably put to loss of money and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
therefore, he is entitled to be suitably compensated;
after all, act of the Registry is not act of the Court and
therefore, the immunity otherwise available to the court
as such, does not protect the Registry;
(iii) assuming for the sake of argument that the Registry
is an extended arm of the Court, still it cannot claim
immunity from the civil liability arising from it's inaction
namely disobedience of the Court direction to invest
petitioner's money in bank deposit; Broom's Legal
Maxims, 10th Edition, Universal Law Publishing
Company Pvt. Ltd at page 73 states: "Actus Curiae
Neminem Gravabit - an act of the court shall prejudice
no man... This maxim is founded upon justice and good
sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the
administration of the law"; therefore, an injured litigant
cannot be asked to put up with the injury sans any
solace; the argument to the contra cannot be
countenanced without offending the rule of law;
(iv) petitioners right to legal remedy arises from the
maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, which is a fundamental of
any civilized legal system; he had the right to have his
money invested in the bank deposit under the order of
the Court below; the corresponding duty rested on the
shoulders of the Registry of the Court below; petitioners
right has been infringed and this act of infringement is a
legal wrong from which the remedial right arises; it
hardly needs to be stated that where there is a right,
there has to be the remedy; a contra view militates
against the notion of law and justice;
v) the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
A.R.Antulay Vs. R.S.Naik, (1988) 2 SCC 602 at
paras 50, 62 & 83 has held that the basic fundamentals
of the administration of justice are that no man should
suffer because of the mistake of the court; no man
should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of
irregularities; ex dubito justitiae, the court must do
justice to an aggrieved party; if a man has been
wronged, so long as it lies within the human machinery
of administration of justice, the wrong must be
remedied; these observations of the Apex Court come
to the aid of the petitioner who has suffered loss at the
hands of the Registry of the court below and therefore,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
he needs to be suitably compensated, subject to
recovery from the erring officials of the Registry;
vi) during the period between 1.07.2009 and
31.07.2012, had petitioner's money in a sum of
Rs.60,82,869/- been invested in any bank, the sum
would have swelled by the accrual of interest thereon
and that is the reason why the court below had directed
it's Registry to put the money in bank deposit vide order
dated 21.04.2009 and the same was reiterated vide
order dated 1.07.2009 at the instance of the petitioner;
therefore, petitioner is entitled to be compensated in
some way known to law i.e., by way of damages; in
adjudging the damages, this court has kept in mind the
likely interest which the petitioner's money would have
fetched during the relevant period; ideally speaking
petitioner ought to have again reminded the court
below, is also true;
6. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition
succeeds in part; the impugned order is invalidated; a
writ of mandamus issues to the 1st respondent to
calculate and pay to the petitioner within eight weeks
[by way of damages] the interest at the rate of 4% per
annum on a sum of Rs.60,82,869/- for the period
between 1.07.2009 and 31.07.2012; this public money
after payment to the petitioner shall be recovered in
accordance with law from the erring officials of the
Registry who are responsible for all this.
Compliance report to be filed with the Registrar General
of this Court on or before 31.12.2019."
9. His submission is that, the amount would have to be paid
by the Registrar General and recovered in accordance with
law from the erring officials of the Registry.
10. Sri.Jagadish Patil, learned counsel, who has entered
appearance for respondent No.4-Registrar General submits
that in terms of Rule 13 of the Accounts Rules for
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
Subordinate Civil and Criminal Courts, 1967, the
petitioners were required to file vouchers for depositing the
amounts in fixed deposit and the same not having been
done, the Registry cannot be held responsible for non-
depositing the amount in fixed deposit. It is further
contended that the petitioners ought to have been diligent
and prudent in verifying whether a deposit as directed was
made or not. The petitioners not having verified this fact
cannot after a long time claim interest. The voucher under
Rule 13 was filed only on 02.08.2016 and if it had been
filed earlier, a fixed deposit could have been made earlier.
Hence, the petition is required to be dismissed.
11. The short question that would arise for consideration in
this matter is whether an officer of the Registry would be
responsible to make good any loss caused to the party,
who had deposited money for onward deposit in fixed
deposit as per the direction of the Court. It is not in
dispute that the deposit of money in the present case was
made by the petitioners in furtherance of a judicial order
and the petitioners had filed an application for onward
deposit of the same in interest bearing fixed deposit. The
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
deposit having been made by the petitioners on
01.08.2014 and the money having been received by the
Registry, no deposit was made in fixed deposit requiring
the petitioners to approach this Court.
12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated
10.10.2019 in W.P.No.7901/2017 has categorically come
to a conclusion that in such a case, the petitioners would
be unjustifiably put to loss of money and therefore entitled
to be suitably compensated. The act of the Registry not
being an act of the Court, is not available for immunity and
there is no protection or immunity of an act of the registry.
This Court has categorically further held that whenever
there is a violation of rights, a remedy would be available
by invoking the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. The right of
the petitioners or any person depositing money being
infringed upon by not having been invested in fixed
deposit, the depositor would be required to be
compensated is what has been held by Coordinate Bench
of this Court. The said decision, in my considered opinion,
would be applicable on all fours to the present case also.
The contention taken by respondent No.4-Registrar
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
General that Rule 13 has not been followed by the
petitioners would be of no avail. If at all such requirement
was there, it was for the registry to put a note on the
order sheet so that when the matter was called before the
Court, it could have been informed to the petitioners. No
such note having been put up and the petitioners not
having been put on notice, the requirement of submitting
vouchers, it was for the Registry to have deposited the
amount in compliance with the order passed by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad dated 01.08.2014.
The said order not having been complied with, I am of the
considered opinion that the errant officers would be liable
to make payment of interest which the petitioners have
been deprived of.
13. On enquiry, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 as to
whether there is any automated system available for
receipt and for deposit of money received in fixed deposit,
he submits that so far as there is no such system but an
endeavor would be made for establishment of such
automatic system so as to enable the Registry to receive
amounts by way of any of newer modes of receipts viz.,
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
RTGS, NEFT, UPI etc., into the accounts designated for
such purpose and insofar as those accounts are concerned,
necessary provision be made for onward automatic deposit
in interest bearing fixed deposit for highest period
permissible with a further auto-renewal term thereof on
the expiry of initial term of fixed deposit.
14. Designated Administrative Officer of the Court also to be
provided with dashboard indicating the amount received in
judicial deposit and the amount deposited in a fixed
deposit so as to reconcile the figures at least once in
fifteen days so as to avoid such future incidents either by
oversight or otherwise. In view of the aforesaid, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The Registrar General is directed to calculate and
pay by way of damages interest @ 4% per
annum from 01.08.2014 to 02.08.2016 to the
petitioners within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:631
iii) Needless to say that the amount shall be
recovered in accordance with law from the erring
officials by holding due and necessary inquiry.
iv) Compliance with the above as also general
directions to be filed within four weeks from
today.
v) The Registrar General is also directed to circulate
a copy the judgment of this Court dated
10.10.2019 in W.P.No.7901/2017 and also
present judgment, both in English and in
Kannada, to all the judges in the District
Judiciary, as also to the staff in the Accounts
Section of the High Court as also the District
Judiciary, within a period of three weeks from
today.
vi) Though the above petition is disposed of, re-list
on 19.02.2024 for reporting compliance with
above directions.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
