SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 223

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
ARESH @ ASHOK J. MEHTA (D) BY PROP. LRS. - Appellant
VERSUS
SPL. TAHSILDAR, BALGAUM KARNATAKA & ANR. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5517 of 2005
Decided on 11-3-2013

Headnote:

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Section 44 - Land Acquisition Act of 1894 - Section 23(1) - claim for payment of interest - amount of compensation - appellant-landlord and the tenant and determined the quantum of amount payable at Rs. 17,244/- vide order dated 28.2.1983. It was held that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- is to be paid as first instalment within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order and the balance in 19 equated annual instalments with interest @ 5½% as indicated therein. The compensation amount was paid to the appellant in between the years 1983-1985 but without any interest. In this background, the appellant moved in the Court of Special Tehsildar, Chikodi with an application that his 1/3rd share in the house and well situated in RS No. 16/1 of Examba village vested with the State therefore he claimed interest on the compensation amount @ 5½% per annum w.e.f. 1st March, 1974 till the payment of the entire amount. The details of amount of compensation, the amount of interest acquired on the compensation amount, the amount paid to the appellant and the amount as was due to him on 25th May, 1988 were shown in the representation –Held, case, the party claimed the interest on the amount of compensation. The argument was that the amount of compensation awarded should carry a reasonable interest from the date of acquisition as the claimants lost possession of their property. The said argument earlier was rejected by the High Court principally on the ground that relevant Act of 1948 makes no provision for payment of interest and omission to make such a provision amounts in law to an intention not to award interest in regard to compensation amount determined under it. This Court noticed the contention raised on behalf of the landlords property has been acquired by the State and the State has taken possession of it. Thus they have been deprived of the right to receive the income from the property and there is a time lag between the taking of the possession by the State and the payment of compensation by it to the claimants. During this period they have been deprived of the income of the property and they have not been able to receive interest from the amount of compensation. Stated broadly the act of taking possession of immovable property generally implies an agreement to pay interest on the value of the property and it is on this principle that a claim for interest is made against the State. This question has been considered on several occasions and the general principle on which the contention is raised by the claimants Privy Council that “upon the expropriation of land under statutory power, whether for the purpose of private gain or of good to the public at large, the owner is entitled to interest upon the principal sum awarded from the date when possession was taken, unless the statute clearly shows a contrary intention”. Dealing with the argument that the expropriation with which the Privy Council was concerned was not effected for private gain, but for the good of the public at large, it observed “but for all that, the owner is deprived of his property in this case as much as in the other, and the rule has long been accepted in the interpretation of statutes that they are not to be held to deprive individuals of property without compensation unless the intention to do so is made quite clear. The right to receive the interest takes the place of the right to retain possession and is within the rule”. It would thus be noticed that the claim for interest proceeds on the assumption that when the owner of immovable property loses possession of it he is entitled to claim interest in place of right to retain possession -appealallowed

JUDGMENT

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.:-This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-landlord against the judgment & order dated 6th August, 1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 8110/1996 whereby the Division Bench rejected the prayer for interest on amount of compensation w.e.f. 1st March, 1974 and thereby affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge but held that the appellant-landlord is entitled for interest w.e.f. 1st March, 1984.

2. The appellant was the owner of the land bearing R.S. No. 16/1, measuring 7 acres 21 guntas in village-Examba, Taluka Chikodi, Karnataka. The land in question was vested with the State for grant in favour of the tenant w.e.f. 1st March, 1974 under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by Act No.1 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

3. The Tehsildar, Chikodi under Section 48A(7) and Section 53 heard the appellant-landlord and the tenant and determined the quantum of amount payable at Rs. 17,244/- vide order dated 28.2.1983. It was held that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- is to be paid as first instalment within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order and the balance in 19 equated annual instalments with interest @ 5½% as indicated therein. The compensation amount was paid to the appellant in between the years 1983-1985 but without any interest. In this background, the appellant moved in the Court of Special Tehsildar, Chikodi with an application that his 1/3rd share in the house and well situated in RS No. 16/1 of Examba village vested with the State therefore he claimed interest on the compensation amount @ 5½% per annum w.e.f. 1st March, 1974 till the payment of the entire amount. The details of amount of compensation, the amount of interest acquired on the compensation amount, the amount paid to the appellant and the amount as was due to him on 25th May, 1988 were shown in the representation. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 19,116.37. The Special Tehsildar, Chikodi vide letter dated 7th June, 1988 rejected his prayer and informed that as per Circular No. RD 171:LRM-86 dated 24.11.1986 interest has to be paid on the amount paid through the National Savings Certificate and, therefore, no interest is payable on the amount received in cash.

4. The order of rejection was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition no. 18591/88 before the Karnataka High Court; a prayer was made to direct the respondents to pay interest for delayed payment w.e.f. 1.3.1974. The Circular dated 24.11.1986, was also challenged by the appellant, as the same was referred to reject his claim. The learned Single Judge by his judgment held that no interest is payable towards the amount paid in cash. It was further held that interest @5 ½% is payable, if the compensation amount is paid through National savings certificates. On challenge, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order passed by learned Single Judge but held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant is entitled for interest w.e.f. 1st March, 1984.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the examples cited in Circular dated 24.11.1986 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the clarification given therein. He secondly contended that the tenanted lands having vested with the State w.e.f. 1st March, 1974, the owners of the land cannot be deprived of the interest on compensation amount for which they are entitled from the date the principal amount become due. He thirdly contended that once the amount of compensation payable is determined in respect of the delayed payment then the land owner is also entitled to the interest amount even if the principal amount is paid in cash. It was also contended that when Circular dated 24.11.1986 itself makes it clear for investment of the amount which shall carry interest @ 5½%, there is no bar as such either under the Act or the Rules to deprive the land-owner f

























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top