Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2236 (KAR)

HANAMAPPA IRAPPA NAYAK v. STATE OF KA RNATAKA

2019-12-02

ALOK ARADHE, N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the ‘Act’) has been filed by the land owners being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.10.2013 passed by the reference court by which, they have been deprived compensation/damages from the period of dispossession i.e. 25.10.1998 till the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued i.e. on 11.11.2011. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that, the appellants were owners of land measuring 4 acres of R.S.No.248/8F situated at Simikeri village, Taluk and District Bagalkot. Admittedly, the aforesaid land was acquired for the purposes of establishment of rehabilitation centre for displaced persons of Murnal and Yadahalli and Surakoppa Honnarahalli, Anadinni, Bannidinni and Chabbi villages. It is also not in dispute that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11.11.2011 i.e. approximately after a period of thirteen years after the possession of the lands in question was taken by the respondents. Thereafter, an award was passed on 30.08.2012. Being aggrieved, the appellants sought reference. The reference Court by impugned judgment dated 19.10.2013 enhanced the amount of compensation. However, the appellants were deprived of damages/ compensation for a period from which the possession was taken from them till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 11.11.2011. In the aforesaid factual background, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants while placing reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tahera Khotoon and others V/s Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer and others, (2014) 13 SCC 613 and Balwan Singh and others V/s Land Acquisition Collector and another, (2016) 13 SCC 412 , has submitted that the appellants are entitled to damages at the rate of 15% on market value from the date of dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the appellants can neither claim compensation before the reference Court for the period in question nor they can claim such compensation/ damages in this appeal. It is further submitted that the appellants should file a civil suit and should claim compensation. It is further submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate that the compensation should be awarded at the prevalent rate of interest. 5. It is further submitted that the appellants should file a civil suit and should claim compensation. It is further submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate that the compensation should be awarded at the prevalent rate of interest. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.L.Jain (D) by LRS V/s DDA and others, (2004) 4 SCC 79 as well as in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (Dead) by LRs V/s Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 560, instead of remanding the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer held that the land owners are entitled 15% interest to the land losers from the date of dispossession till the date of preliminary notification. The aforesaid amount which adversely awarded by way of compensation to the land owners on the value of the land payable to them. The decisions were followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwan Singh and others V/s Land Acquisition Collector and another, (2016) 13 SCC 412 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again granted additional interest by way of damages at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of dispossession till date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The right to hold the property is a constitutional right, which is guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The State cannot be permitted to illegally take possession of the property belonging to a citizen and to utilize the same. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law as well as guarantee extended to the appellants under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to direct that 15% per annum shall be granted as an additional interest on the market value determined by the reference Court for the period from 25.10.1998 till 11.11.2011. 7. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the respondents before the reference Court, within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of the order passed today. 8. In view of the preceding analysis, to the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the reference Court is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs.