Karnataka High Court

The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Sangareddy S/O Siddalingappa Police ... on 5 March, 2024

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                -1-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB
                                                         WA No.200054 of 2023




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

                                             PRESENT

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                                                AND
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

                             WRIT APPEAL NO.200054 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

                      BETWEEN:

                      THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                      KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
                      DEVELOPMENT BOARD
                      KAPANUR, HUMANABAD BASE
                      KALABURAGI
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI A.M. NAGRAL, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

Digitally signed by
                      1.   SANGAREDDY
VARSHA N                   S/O SIDDALINGAPPA POLICE PATIL
RASALKAR
Location: High             AGE: 60 YEARS
Court Of Karnataka         OCC: AGRICULTURE
                           R/O ANAKSNGUR VILLAGE
                           TQ: SHAHAPUR (NOW WADGERA TALUK)
                           DIST: YADGIR.

                      2.   SIDDAPPA
                           S/O SIDDALINGAPPA
                           AGE: YEARS
                           OCC: AGRICULTURIST
                           R/O KADECHOOR VILLAGE
                           TQ: AND DIST: YADGIRI.
                              -2-
                               NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB
                                      WA No.200054 of 2023




3.   KAMALAMMA
     W/O LATE VISHWANATH REDDY GOUDA
     AGE: 60 YEARS
     OCC: AGRICULTURE
     R/O ANAKSNGUR
     TQ: SHAHAPUR
     (NOW WADGERA TALUK)
     DIST: YADGIRI.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1;
    SRI AJAY JAWALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.200600/2019
DATED 13.10.2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY   H.T.NARENDRA    PRASAD   J., DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the respondent No.1 - Special

Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'SLAO') challenging the

order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.200600/2019 whereby the Writ Petition

filed by the petitioner No.1 is allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the

respondent No.1/petitioner is the owner of the land

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB

bearing Sy.No.608 measuring 15 acres 22 guntas situated

at Kadechur village, Yadgiri Taluk and District. The

appellant authority has acquired the said land vide final

notification dated 30.12.2011. Thereafter, the consent

award has been passed on 13.02.2012 under Section 29 of

the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for

short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since the

amount has not been paid, respondent No.1 herein has

filed the Writ Petition seeking payment of compensation in

terms of the consent award passed by the SLAO along

with interest and solatium. Learned Single Judge by order

dated 13.10.2022 allowed the Writ Petition with a direction

that appellant/SLAO shall pay interest on the consent

award. The operative portion of the order in

W.P.No.200600/2019 is extracted as under:

"7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1/SLAO, KIADB, Kalaburagi, is hereby directed to pay the petitioner interest on the consent award calculated at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of consent award for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB

annum till 23.02.2019 i.e., the date when the amount was deposited by the SLAO before the Civil Court.

8. Insofar as claim of respondent No.3 is concerned, it is required to be held that if respondent No.3 succeeds in obtaining a decree in her favour and respondent No.3 becomes entitled for any share in the compensation, then the petitioner shall be bound to repay or reimburse respondent No.3 accordingly.

9. Respondent No.1/SLAO shall pay petitioner interest amount as directed hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

3. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the

learned Single Judge, the appellant/SLAO is before this

Court.

4. Sri.A.M.Nagral, learned counsel for the

appellant/SLAO contended that as per the consent of the

parties, the consent award has been passed on

13.02.2012 under Section 29 of the Act. Thereafter

immediately on 25.04.2012 the appellant/SLAO has issued

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB

notice to the land losers requesting them to produce the

relevant documents for withdrawal of compensation

amount. Later the appellant/SLAO has received the

complaints from the family members for not releasing the

amount. Therefore, the appellant/SLAO has deposited the

award amount in the Civil Court on 23.02.2019. There is

no delay on the part of the appellant/SLAO in depositing

the amount. Despite issuance of notice to the land losers

for submission of documents for withdrawal of the award

amount, they have not come forward to receive the

amount. He further contended that since the award passed

is consent award under Section 29 of the Act, the same

does not carry any interest or solatium. He further

contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in

directing the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 9% for

a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per

annum till the date of deposit.

5. Per contra, Sri.Manvendra Reddy, learned

counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Ajay Jawali, learned

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB

counsel for respondent No.3 have contended that consent

award has been passed on 13.02.2012, if the parties have

not come forward to receive the amount and if there is any

dispute as per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the

SLAO to deposit the compensation amount in the Civil

Court. Accordingly, the SLAO deposited the amount in the

Civil Court on 23.02.2019. There is delay on the part of

SLAO in depositing the amount in the Civil Court. Hence,

they contended that the land losers are entitled for

interest for the delayed period.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further

contended that in the consent award, the appellant/SLAO

has passed the award after considering the interest and

solatium from the date of taking possession till passing the

consent award and if there is any delay in payment of

consent award, the land losers are entitled for interest.

The learned Single Judge after considering the judgment

of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sidramappa

and Others Vs.State of Karnataka and Others in WA

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB

Nos.200492 and 200535-582/2014 disposed of on

02.12.2014 has passed the order. They have contended

that there is no error in the order passed by the learned

Single Judge. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

8. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 is

the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.608 measuring 15

acres 22 guntas situated at Kadechur village, Taluk and

District Yadgir. It is also not in dispute that the said land

has been acquired by the appellant/SLAO under the Act. It

is also not in dispute that consent award has been passed

on 13.02.2022 under Section 29 of the Act. Thereafter, on

25.04.2012, the appellant/SLAO has issued notice to the

respondents requesting them to produce the relevant

documents for receiving the award amount. Learned

Single Judge has relied upon the judgment in the case of

'Sidramappa' (supra). The relevant paragraphs for

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB

reference are Para-8 to 10. The same are extracted below

for easy reference:

8. It is immensely profitable to refer to what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laudably observed in its decision in the case of K.Krishna Reddy and others vs. The Special Deputy Collector reported in AIR 1988 SC 2123.

"12. .................... After all money is what money buys. What the claimants could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps, not even one half of it. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling. With rising inflation, the delayed payment may lose all charm and utility of the compensation. In some cases, the delay may be detrimental to the interest of claimants. The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation. They totally depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves nowhere. They are left high and dry. They have no savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no other work. They may even face starvation unless rehabilitated. In all such cases, it is of utmost importance that the award should be made without delay. The enhanced compensation must be etermined without loss of time. The appellate

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB

power of remand, at any rate ought not to be exercised lightly. It shall not be resorted to unless the award is wholly unintelligible. It shall not be exercised unless there is total lack of evidence. If remand is imperative, and if the claim for enhanced compensation is tenable, it would be proper for the appellate court to do modest best to mitigate hardships. The appellate court may direct some interim payment to claimants subject to adjustment in the eventual award."

9. The appellants are blameless. They have not resisted the land acquisition. They have voluntarily surrendered their possession, legitimately expecting that the agreed amounts would be released to them without any loss of time. For the delay of one year, two months on the part of the respondents and for no fault on the part of the appellants, the appellants cannot be penalized and asked to forgo the interest. We therefore set aside the learned Single Judge's order and allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned endorsement dated 04/18.08.2011 (Annexure-X).

10. The next question that is required to be determined is at what rate the appellants are to be given interest. The appellants have sought

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB

interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The respondents' stand is that if at all the interest is to be awarded, it should not be at more than 5%. The rate of interest cannot be fixed based on the ipse dixit of any party. It has to be strictly as prescribed by the statute. Following Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act we hold that the appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% from 24.09.2009 for a period of one year and after the expiry of one year from the said date, they are entitled to interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the agreed amounts.

9. It is very clear from the above judgment and

facts of the case that the consent award has been passed

on 13.02.2012, notice was also issued by the

appellant/SLAO on 25.04.2012. The family members of the

land losers objected for releasing of the award amount.

Under these circumstances, the only option left for the

appellant/SLAO is to deposit the award amount in the Civil

Court. In the case on hand, the appellant/SLAO has

deposited the award amount in the Civil Court on

23.02.2019, hence, from the date of the consent award till

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:1966-DB