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 C.C.C.NO.1016/2016 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SMT.SARALAMMA W/O ADHISHESHA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/A 1ST MAIN ROAD HEGGADADEVANAKOTE MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 114. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R. ADV. FOR HARANAHALLI LAW PARTNERS, ADVS.) AND:
SRI VIJAY KUMAR CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYAT HEGGADADEVANAKOTE HEGGADADEVANAKOTE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 114. ...ACCUSED (SRI S.NAGARAJA, ADV.) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CONTEMPT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR THE WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE POSITIVE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.967/2009 DATED 09/01/2015.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This contempt petition is filed alleging violation of the direction issued by this Court in Writ Appeal No.967/2009 disposed of on 9th January 2015.
2. Land belonging to petitioner (complainant herein) comprised of Sy.No.116/1 of H.D.Kote village was unauthorisedly utilized by the Town Panchayat, Heggadadevanakote. The land was neither acquired nor any compensation was paid. Hence, the petitioner/land-loser filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11309/2004 (LB-RES) seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation for having taken over the land without duly acquiring the same. The complainant had indeed sought for payment of interest from the date of taking over of possession till the date of payment of compensation along with solatium and other statutory benefits. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on 29.1.2009 directing the Town Panchayat, Heggadadevanakote ‘to pay compensation to the petitioner as on the date of dispossession along with interest @ 6% till realisation’.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Town Panchayat, H.D.Kote filed an appeal in Writ Appeal No.5161/2009 whereas, the complainant herein (writ petitioner) filed another appeal in Writ Appeal No.967/2009. In the Writ Appeal filed by the complainant, she urged that, interest awarded at 6% by the learned Single Judge was not just and proper, as she ought to have been awarded all the statutory benefits including interest as provided under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’ for brevity).
4. Both the Writ Appeals were heard together.
Appeal filed by the Town Panchayat was dismissed. So far as the appeal filed by the complainant herein, the Division Bench observed in para-12 as under:
“12. So far as the appeal filed by the writ petitioner in W.A.No.967/2009 is concerned, since the writ petitioner has approached this Court long after dispossession, if the learned Single Judge has ordered to pay compensation at the rate of 6% p.a., this Court cannot interfere with the same. However, it is observed that compensation payable by the Town Panchayat to the writ petitioner would include other statutory benefits as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act.”
5. It is thus clear that interest awarded at 6% per annum by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed and has not been interfered with by the Division Bench. The Division Bench has no doubt directed the Town Panchayat to pay compensation along with other statutory benefits as contemplated in the Act.
6. As the respondent/Town Panchayat did not pay the compensation, present contempt proceeding has been initiated.
7. Today, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/Town Panchayat, Sri.S.Nagaraja has handed over a cheque for Rs.1,74,628/- to the Counsel appearing for the complainant. He has also placed before the Court a Memo of Calculation stating interalia that market value of the land has been arrived at Rs.8,000/- per acre and solatium at 30% has been paid under Section 23(2) of the Act and 12% additional market value on the market value has been computed and paid as required under Section 23(1A) of the Act. However, interest has been calculated at 6% and the amount so calculated has been indeed paid by way of cheque today.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant Sri.Subramanya.R. submits that, respondent ought to have paid interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at 15% for the subsequent years till payment was made.
9. We are unable to agree with the contention of the complainant because the Division Bench has made it clear that interest ordered to be paid by the learned Single Judge @ 6% per annum was not interfered with.
10. It is further contended by the complainant that, determination of market value at Rs.8,000/- per acre is highly unjust and unrealistic. We decline to go into the said question in the contempt proceedings. If market value has not been determined in accordance with law and if complainant is aggrieved by the same, she is at liberty to avail alternate remedy as provided in law.
11. Reserving such liberty, the contempt proceeding is closed as there has been substantial compliance of the order passed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-