High Court Karnataka High Court

Neelawwa vs The Assistant Commissioner Cum … on 9 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Neelawwa vs The Assistant Commissioner Cum … on 9 July, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
A i  "(B'?'$.£Ri='E},N'.§§ULKA§f€i, I-ICGP)

 : 'KQPPAL--- " DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY THE
1 "'-V'_P_Ej'lTIONER HEREIN U/S 114 or CPC FOR RECALLING
A  THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN LAC No.114/95

T  '"l§ATED 3.4.96

No.2/03 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUI)GE(SR.DN)
KOPPAL DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY_.._'§'HE
PEFITIONER HEREIN ms 114 OF CPC FOR RECAALIENG
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN LAC NO'."}.(_)1/96
DATED 23.9.96.  j » .   , '1.

IN QRP N0.709I2005:

BETWEEN:

Sm HULIGEVVA,

W/0 TIPPANNA YELIGAAR, A A

AGE 49 YEARS, occ: AGR1L.,  "

R/0 ARAKERI, TQ. YELBURGA, A % -. é  
ms? KOPPAL.   _  ..pE'-m'1QNER

(BY SR1 LAXMAN T. MA'Ni4AGAEi§--,'gxDV{j'_;.  _

5-"-9-5 9 ¥} _ 

1. THE As:§1EifAa~j'r'   '
CUM LANE) ;%C$QUISfPIOi\¥ DFFIQER,
KOPPAL,-TQ AND "D1'E1f';---KDPPAL.

2. THEV"fi3S13'FANT"F3XECUfF'IVE ENGINEER,

T.R.DD11sION 'R03. Nl"'LI§§IRA3AD,
TQ. HOSPET, DI~S'T'.._KO,PPAL.
   ~ ..RESPONDEN'I'S

" "i';E§EA,..1s FILED UNDER SECTION 151 01:' cm
AGA3'NSr.m_E1' ORDER DATED 5.8.05 PASSED IN msc.
No.21/9;; 'Du THE FILE on' THE cmr. ..IuDGE{sR.Dn)

 



IN CRP NCLTOOIQOOS:

BETWEEN:

 

Sm' SHIVAWWA   

w/0 HANUMAPPA I

AGE 44 YEARS, occ: AGRIL.,

RIO ARAKERI,TQ.YELBURCi'sA,    ' 
DIST 'KOPPAL. '   V .I1?EI'I'I*I;3:«..I.E,I:z=

(BY SR1 LAXMAN T. !~IIl_\_If3'1'AG$.l*J_IVV;A' IADII.) 

1. THE AS$I$TA3§*i'_--_C0§vfih;i:If.§Si{§}NEf§ " 
CUM LAND_..AcQU.1sI'P1j0N-- OFFICER,
KOI§P{§L,"»TQ- $30 r)_IsIf'.- 

2. THE ASSIST}'§H.T'EXF4CU'F!VE ENGINEER,

T.R;I)IvIsIo.N NO. I»,_NII1NI_RABAD,
TQ. H{)SPET,*~DIST. _I?'AL.
 - -_   ..RESPONDEN'I'S

 =  _ (I=I*If'sI§I:'D.I~I.I IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC

 'AI:-.AIIIs*It.V*rIII3.I~~oRDER DATED 5.3.05 PASSED IN MISC

'II0;3I/€I3'j----o'II THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JuI:)GE(sR.I)N)
KC}!-"PA..L~ IIISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY THE

PETFFIQNER HEREIN UIS 114 OF CPO FOR RECALLING

 THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN LAC NO.12]96
 DEITED 11.10.96.

  _ fin CRP N0.71OI2_0O5:

BETWEEN:

 

YELLAREDAPPA RAMAREDAR
SINCE DECEASED. BY HIS L.RS.

A) PARVATAMMA,

W,' 0 YELLI"'§RE'JP.P?A -.P.l'.{RED.%R,



 , A_ IN V1sio.f7oS(':2-t2o__5__»_;¢ ,
   .,

1%NI§SASP;i"1NAi§ASAPPA BAGANAL

  ' u,DISI' KQBPAL. ..PETITIONER
'5"(Ss:r S§zI LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADV. )
  A ¥%lD:

" 1. THE ASSISTANT COMIVHSSIONER

(BY SR1 LAXMAN T. MANTAGAN I, ADV. )

A__.P.iD.=. 

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER T T
cum LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,'---_
KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KGPLPAL. ' *

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE"E._NGINEER,._ 
T.R.DWZSi0N NO.I, MUNIRABAD,  
TQ. HOSPET, I)IS'I'.'KOPPAL. _,    
 S ; ..'izSSPQNDSmS

(BY SR! D.N.KUI._{KARNI%_"HCé1?   V

THIS__CRP §S_g3.<'ILEI) win-ER SECTION 115 OF CPC
AGAINST THE..-'ORDER 'DATE--1D_~ S'.=3.'O5 PASSED IN MISC
No.25/Q3" on "-Tm; V FILE_ '01? ____'I'HE crvn, JUDGE(SR.m:)
KOPPAL D'iSae11SsIiéwG_ 'THE PETFTION FILED BY THE
PETYFKJNER HER-Eliit U-,I_S~-.114» OF CPC FOR RECALLING
THE JUDGMENT AND'AW'--ARD PASSED IN LAC NO.53[96
DATED 31,1337.   S  '

AGE" 40 YEARS, occ: AGRIL.,
R/O "ARAi{ERI, TQ. YELBURGA,

CUM LAND ACQU!SI'I'I()N OFFICER,
KOPPAL, TQ AN D DIST. KOPPAL.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
T.R.DIVISIOI'.' N511, ML'NIRABP.D,



12

market value. The said Execution Petition was 

the Executing Court, by its order dated,  *

Aggrieveci by this order, the_,appe}]aIif "?§1ee'i "C..R.R

No.3923/2002. T131.-3' Court, by its  (mie'1_',e :%atédee'2s}h 

2003 disposed of the  '*n  pefiti}e'fl,i._'v19Izit,hE anff

observation that it is ogen to    
application before  % for appropriate
orders. Pursuant therem-,..et_i1e  Misceflaneous
No.32/2003 _ Code of Civil
Procedure.     rejected by the
   05/08/2005. Impuwing

these ozeciers,  '  presented.

..     'I'.Mamagam', the learned counsel for

 ethe.  eubzrnits that the g;ranting of interest on

  market value is automatic and

V Vv _  According to him, as per the scheme of the

" H "  mi2.'l'Z1§i Aéxziuisiflion Act 1894, the land loser is entitled to

  ieteieet on the dehayed payment of solatium and additional

  value as a matter of course. In support of tin

V submissions, he has :re}ied on an order, dated 05/12/2007

passed by this Court in C.R.P No.3402[20D§ wherein it is

held that if a part of the azwanied amount remains unpaid, it

9:3!-I.



x V?  amount, is definitely not tenab 1e and is aceozvdm gly

means that the award is not fully satisfied. The 
portion of the said older is extracw herein  «d    A' 

"8.   ...If either the entire 
determined inclusive of the angioujif 

Section 23{1--A) of the Act is ndtvpeiii' 'or intéms2«¢giede,e,"e

the entire amount fi*d:_n~.._the '-date of  R
possession till the date of  
and paid, then it é~..*x_;ou1:t;t§ Vdthe  5.33 not
fully satisfied  * xjthe person in
Whose favour:   made
can fine ;e._xe::u.fiin'gV 
the     1' the ' earlier execution
pc+_i1:'uo;ifi$r   Rang as it is permitted
fer dredd execute the decree before
the mm  the perkad of limitation
plcséfififid 

_ V   execution petition not having
V    on the gnound of limitation, but on

  the  that the judgment was not explicit in

  the solatium and additional market value
 also for awarding interest on the entire

 set aside and the matter remanded to the executing
court to enable the respondents to deposit the

balance deexetal amount before the execufitmg court,
by eomputing the amount as indicated by the
Supreme Court in Stmdefs (Supna). Deposit to be
made within eight weeks from this day, failing
which,itisopentothexevisionpefitionerton;1ove

HBH.

14

the executing court to take action for realization 95%’:

the balance amount as indicated in this ordcr.”__ ‘

5. Nextly, he has also j. that: {;
Bench Judgment of this Court in % the of

zmmaz-m .maLvx mm
Awram
reported in am 2004 ms that :4;
is the duty of the to grant
interest on “valucg once the
conditions 34 of the Act an:

satiskd) to me am.-:.~1 of that relief to fm
owners of thé be totally unjust, illegal
and vinlatfifi 91′ 34 of the Land Aoqu1s:t:o’ ‘ ‘ 11

6*.’ Sxi also sought to draw the support

Couzfs judgment in the case of
A mm or mm, reported in max 413 saw
;’l’h¢ relevant poxtions of the judgment are extracted

A } %

’14. Question of payment of intemst would misc
only when the compensation is not paid or
dcmsited on or before the date of taking

REH.

12. Each of the principies hid down or

prescribed henzin above are to be applied to the _

case on hand. 30 flat as the principle (a) gigs A

not see in the Reference Court’s

the chin; for interest was exptesslf” *’

Applying’ the Principle (b). as tfie:”<:.a1m' f not
been made and for the

Executing Court to apply cfftf case.

13. Althqi1g._11 tfie’ V’ 7 Qoixxt states that

satisfaction; to be more
formal say so because the
Executiyg ._ ~’ dismissing the Exzecuiion
Petition -mas. I hold mt them is no

mexfitgé the ofthe DH, the EP is dismissed, with

tt:1e.__DH to file fresh EP, in case, they are stilt

I of intemst on solatium and additional

market faialzte’.’A’ The reservation of such a liberty clearly

the issue relatmg’ to interest on solatium and

A market value was kept open.

14. In the next round of execution pmoeedjngs, the

‘4 Executing Court closed the proceedings without resexviag

FIE!-I.

21

matter to the Executing Court for the purpose of qnanifiying

the amounts, if any, payahk: by the 1vcspond_éjits’A» _
petitioners. Both the pcthmners and the

file their fresh memos of calculations

on solatium and additional vain: ~:;m:’ cut = L’

oifdatc Le. 19/09/2oo1V%.

17. Appt’13ac:v1″a1:i11g”””:.t§:i.f=1t ” land
acquisition ago, I also deem
it cam to dispose of the
outfit limit of 2 months from
today. ‘Fur’ther,’, and the respondents

shall; memos of oaiculationsbcforc the

. V. ‘”AR¢f’e1t{:.né§e dn””3’1/07/2008 without waiting for any

‘ . , Iigxwufion Court.

A No.o1§_d§.2rTVas to costs.

Sd/”%’
Iudgé