Balakrishna Narayan Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Balakrishna Narayan vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Disposition Revision petitions allowed Court Karnataka Decided Oct 28, 1988

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/379327

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/379327
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Venkatachala, J.
Decided On: Oct 28, 1988
Case Number: C.R.P. Nos. 4038 to 4041 of 1986
Subject: Property
Disposition: Revision petitions allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (Central Act No. 1 of 1894) - Sections 28 & 34 - Liability to pay interest ceases only on availability of deposit to party to be withdrawn; not on mere deposit, made unavailable by obtaining stay of execution of Award from Higher Court.; The discharge of liability to pay intere...

Key legal issue: Property
Outcome / disposition: Revision petitions allowed
Acts & sections: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28 and 34

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Balakrishna Narayan

Advocate Vigneshwara Shastri, Adv.

Respondent

Special Land Acquisition Officer

Advocate Chandrasekhar, Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28 and 34
Reported In: ILR1989KAR1887; 1989(1)KarLJ213

Excerpt

.....cease merely when the amount due in such award is deposited in a reference court, but only when such deposit becomes rence court, but only when such deposit becomes available to the decree-holder for being with drawn from the court towards the satisfaction of the amount due under the award. - wakfs act, 1995 [c.a. no. 43/1995]. sections 6,7, 32(3) & 54(3); [d.v. shylendra kumar,j] a joint reading would indicate that the stress is always on the property belonging to wakf as already notified and contained in the list of wakf properties are wakf property which was asserted and used as wakf property.-- sections 83 & 85; ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts - held, section 83 of the act is a provision which seeks to carve out a part of the jurisdiction of the civil court and confer that jurisdiction in favour of the tribunal. while interpreting a provision of this nature, there is no scope for enlarging the meaning and understanding of the words which seeks to ouster the jurisdiction of the civil court as any provision ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court should be strictly construed and cannot be unduly enlarged and unless the subject-matter is squarely covered within the limited jurisdiction sought to be carved out, it cannot be taken to be within the jurisdiction of the special tribunal either by the process of interpretation or through a logical process. general clauses act,1897[c.a.no.10/1897]-- section 3(26): [d.v.shylendra kumar,j] immovable property whether does it cover in respect of a right of easement - held, no. even on an examination of section 3(26) of the general clauses act, 1897, it does not necessarily indicate that a right of easement can be brought within the definition of immovable property as defined in section 3 (26)of the general clauses act, 1897. it is so because the immovable property shall include land i.e., per se land, benefits that arise out of land and things attached to the earth etc. now, so far as the right is concerned,..........to pay interest under an award in a land acquisition case ceases when once the amount due under such award is deposited in reference court though the judgment-debtor had obtained stay of execution of such award by the decree-holder?'2. the facts are briefly these:petitioner in each of these revision petitions had got an award in his/her favour from the court of civil judge, sirsi, under which the respondent-special land acquisition officer was liable to pay the compensation amount including interest as provided therefor till the date of payment or deposit of such compensation amount in court. respondent deposited the compensation amount payable in each of the awards in the reference court in two instalments. the amount deposited in the first instalment was drawn by the decree-holders (petitioners here). but, the second instalment deposited could not be drawn by the decree-holders (petitioners here) because of a stay order obtained by the respondent restraining the petitioners (decree-holders) from executing the awards. when once the stay was vacated, each of the petitioners, besides withdrawing the second instalment amount deposited towards the payment of the awards, filed an execution case seeking recovery of interest on the compensation amount for the period during which it had remained unpaid on account of the stay order operating against each of them. the court below before which the execution cases were filed, made a common order in the cases holding that the liability to pay interest by the judgment-debtors came to an end when once the compensation amount was deposited in the court. it is that order which has been questioned in these revision petitions giving rise to the consideration of the question formulated at the outset.3. no doubt, sections 28 and 34 of the land acquisition act, 1894 ('the act') state that the interest payable thereunder respecting a compensation amount would be upto the date of payment of such compensation amount or its.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Venkatachala, J.

1. A short question which arises for consideration in these Revision Petitions, is -

'Whether the Judgment-debtor's liability to pay interest under an award in a land acquisition case ceases when once the amount due under such award is deposited in reference Court though the Judgment-debtor had obtained stay of execution of such award by the decree-holder?'

2. The facts are briefly these:

Petitioner in each of these revision petitions had got an award in his/her favour from the Court of Civil Judge, Sirsi, under which the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer was liable to pay the compensation amount including interest as provided therefor till the date of payment or deposit of such compensation amount in Court. Respondent deposited the compensation amount payable in each of the awards in the reference Court in two instalments. The amount deposited in the first instalment was drawn by the decree-holders (petitioners here). But, the second instalment deposited could not be drawn by the decree-holders (petitioners here) because of a stay order obtained by the respondent restraining the petitioners (decree-holders) from executing the awards. When once the stay was vacated, each of the petitioners, besides withdrawing the second instalment amount deposited towards the payment of the awards, filed an execution case seeking recovery of interest on the compensation amount for the period during which It had remained unpaid on account of the stay order operating against each of them. The Court below before which the execution cases were filed, made a common order in the cases holding that the liability to pay interest by the Judgment-debtors came to an end when once the compensation amount was deposited in the Court. It is that order which has been questioned in these revision petitions giving rise to the consideration of the question formulated at the outset.

3. No doubt, Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') state that the interest payable thereunder respecting a compensation amount would be upto the date of payment of such compensation amount or its deposit in Court. But, it is difficult to think that the deposit contemplated there discharges the liability of the Judgment-debtor to pay interest if the Judgment-debtor obtains a stay order restraining the decree-holder from obtaining the amount of the award deposited. The discharge of liability to pay interest on account of deposits being made under either Section 34 or Section 28 of the Act, would arise only when the deposit so made becomes available for the decree-holder and not when it is made unavailable to the decree-holder by the Judgment-debtor obtaining a stay order of the execution of the award from a higher Court.

In the said view of the matter, it has to be held that the Judgment-debtor's liability to pay interest under award in a land acquisition case does not cease merely when the amount due in such award is deposited in a reference Court, but only when such deposit becomes available to the decree-holder for being withdrawn from the Court towards the satisfaction of the amount due under the award.

4. In the result, these revision petitions are allowed, the common order questioned herein is set aside and the Court below is directed to take back on its file the execution cases of the petitioners and dispose them of in the light of this decision. No costs.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1988 Same Parties Balakrishna Narayan vs Special Land Acquisition Officer Same Subject Property Same Judge Venkatachala, J. Acts & Sections Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28 and 34

Property