IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CCC NO. 1112/2016 (CIVIL) BETWEEN RAMESH NAIK S/O KRISHNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O MUDDINAKOPPA VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI SHIMOGA-TALUK & DISTRICT PIN CODE-577 201. ... COMPLAINANT (By Sri R.GOPAL, ADV.) AND SRI DASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD BAIKAMPADI INDUSTRIAL AREA MANGALORE-575 001. ... ACCUSED (By Sri BASAVARAJ V.SABARAD, ADV.) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACCUSED FOR COMMITTING CONTEMPT OF THE ORDER DATED 06/02/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.16301/2013, AND ETC.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER 1. This contempt petition is filed complaining violation of the order dated 06.02.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16301/2013. Grievance of complainant is that though the learned Single Judge directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pay 50% of the compensation amount to complainant and the remaining 50% to be deposited in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank within a week from the date of order so as to earn interest, respondent did not comply with the direction issued.
2. On 16.10.2017 after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, this Court recorded payment of compensation by respondent through cheque dated 10.10.2017 drawn on Corporation Bank in the name of complainant for a sum of Rs.28,23,328/-. Sri R.Gopal, learned counsel for complainant contended that interest accrued on the market value payable had not been properly computed as interest had been calculated at 6% per annum from 23.08.2010 instead of calculating the same as provided under the statute viz., Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’). After hearing both parties this Court found that learned Single Judge had issued a direction for payment of compensation along with interest from 23.08.2010 but there was no direction that interest had to be calculated at 6% and hence, interest had to be calculated in terms of the provisions contained under Section 34 of the Act. At that stage, Sri Basavaraj V. Sabard, learned counsel appearing for respondent – Land Acquisition Officer submitted that difference amount of interest would be calculated and steps would be taken to make the payment by the next date of hearing.
3. Today, cheque for balance amount of Rs.6,97,434/- drawn on the Corporation Bank is handed over to the learned counsel for complainant. Complainant is present before the Court. He acknowledges the receipt of cheque. In view of this, nothing further survives in this contempt petition.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that a sum of Rs.35,20,762/- towards the remaining 50% of compensation has been deposited in fixed deposit with the Corporation Bank, Bykampady Branch, Mangalore. Respondent undertakes to hand over Xerox copies of fixed deposit receipt to the complainant to evidence the same within ten days. This submission is placed on record.
5. It is urged by leaned counsel for respondent that Section 34 of the Act may not be strictly applicable in this case and interest is required to be paid for the delayed period in paying compensation as per the agreement reached between the parties. We do not wish to state anything on this aspect of the matter. As the KIADB has complied with the direction in its spirit, keeping open this contention to be urged in other appropriate cases contempt proceeding is closed. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, observation made with regard to interest by referring to Section 34 of the Act is confined to the present case. This contempt proceeding is accordingly closed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE VP