IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT APPEAL NO.2273 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI THONTADARYA K S SON OF SRI SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, OLD NO.953, NEW NO.9, 12TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS HK HEBBAR ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560019.
(BY SRI NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE) AND:
...APPELLANT 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU-560009.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.42033 OF 2011 DATED 22.06.2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 22-6-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.42033 of 2011 dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. The case of the petitioner is that even though the respondent – State have refunded an amount of Rs.1,45,60,000/-, he is entitled for interest at the rate of 18% per annum. It is his plea that he was not responsible for any error that has occurred. He has rightly participated in the auction and paid the bid amount. It is due to the error that is committed by the respondent - State that the money was refunded. It was refunded only after three years. Therefore, he is entitled for interest. The learned Single Judge while considering the contentions, came to the view that since the amount has been received without prejudice there cannot be any legal right for the petitioner to claim interest. Aggrieved by the said order this Writ Appeal is filed.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The fact with regard to the acceptance of money without any prejudice is undisputed. When the amount has been received without prejudice, the subsequent claim for interest would not lie. The Judgment of this Court relied upon by the appellant’s counsel in the case of THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER vs.
Sri.C.RAMAIAH REDDY in Writ Appeal No.984 of 2009 disposed off on 12-10-2009, would be distinguishable on facts as has been held by the learned Single Judge also. Under these circumstances, we find no good ground to interfere. Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-