The State Of Karnataka Vs. Smt. Saraswathi Amma - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1231711
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnFeb-24-2020
Case NumberWA 1603/2018
JudgeRAVI MALIMATH AND M.I.ARUN
AppellantThe State Of Karnataka
RespondentSmt. Saraswathi Amma
Excerpt:
® 1 in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru on the24h day of february, 2020 before the hon'ble mr. justice ravi malimath and the hon'ble mr. justice m.i.arun writ appeal no.1603 of2018(lr-res) between:1. the state of karnataka represented by its secretary revenue department m.s.building dr. ambedkar veedhi bengaluru – 560 001 2. the tahasildar bantwal taluk post jodumarga d.k.district-574 219 ... appellants (by sri. kiran kumar, hcgp) and:1. smt. saraswathi amma daughter of p seetharama bhat aged about81years residing at addyeyi house veerakamba village bantwal taluk – 574 222 d.k. district22. p. sharadamma daughter of late subraya bhat aged about78years residing at pundikai house veerakamba village bantwal taluk – 574 222 d.k. district3 p. s. laxmi daughter of late subraya bhat aged about76years residing at pundikai house veerakamba village bantwal taluk – 574 222 d.k. district4 p. s. parvathi daughter of late subraya bhat aged about80years residing at pundikai house veerakamba village bantwal taluk – 574 222 d.k. district5 p. ganapathi bhat son of seetharama bhat aged about51years residing at addyeyi house veerakamba village bantwal taluk – 574 222 d.k. district all are represented by gpa holder, a vishnu bhat son of seetharama bhat aged about58years residing at addyeyi house veerakamba village3bantwal taluk – 574 222 d.k. district ... respondents (by sri. g. ravishankar shastry, advocate for r1 to r5) this writ appeal is filed under section4of the karnataka high court act praying to call for the entire records of writ petition nos.17381-17385 of2017as well as records of tahsildar, bantwal and the assistant commissioner relating to this case including the order of the assistant commissioner dated2909.2016 and the case file no.klr/cr/93/2001-02 dated2810.2014 of tahsildar, bantwal and etc. this writ appeal coming on for hearing, this day, ravi malimath j., delivered the following: judgment aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by the learned single judge in w.p.nos.17381-17385 of 2017, in directing the tahsildar, bantwal taluk, to calculate the interest payable to the petitioners in terms of the direction issued by the assistant commissioner vide order dated 29.09.2016, respondent nos.1 and 2 therein are in appeal.2. the parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the learned single judge. 43. the plea of the petitioners is that they were landlords of various items of lands situated at bantwal taluk. the tenancy rights being conferred on the tenants, the lands vested with the state with effect from 01.03.1974 and the petitioners were entitled for compensation. therefore, they moved the tahsildar, bantwal for compensation in respect of their lands. the tahsildar determined the amount payable in favour of the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 5.5%. aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed appeals before the assistant commissioner wherein they have contended that they are entitled for interest at the rate of 16.66%. thereafter, the assistant commissioner passed the order dated 29.09.2016 directing the tahsildar, bantwal taluk to pay additional interest at 11.16% on the amount determined by the tahsildar, bantwal. since the same was not complied, the instant writ petition was filed seeking its compliance. 54. the learned single judge directed the tahsildar to comply with the order passed by the assistant commissioner with regard to payment of interest. the principal amount having been paid, the proceedings were initiated before the assistant commissioner only insofar as interest is concerned. the assistant commissioner by the order dated 29.09.2016 directed the tahsildar, bantwal to pay additional interest at the rate of 11.16%. questioning the same, respondent nos.1 and 2 are in appeal.5. learned high court government pleader for the appellants submitted that the order of the assistant commissioner is erroneous. that there is no question of payment of excess interest on the amount the petitioners are entitled to. that the principal has been paid along with interest at the rate of 5.5%. in support of his submissions, he placed reliance on 6 section 51(1)(b) of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 (‘the act’ for short) which reads as follows: “51. mode of payment of the amount.- (1) xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (b) if the amount payable exceeds two thousand rupees the amount up to two thousand rupees shall be paid in cash and the balance shall be paid in non-transferable and non-negotiable bonds carrying interest at the rate of five and a half per cent per annum and of guaranteed face value maturing within a specified period not exceeding twenty years: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” therefore, he submitted that what the petitioners would be entitled to is only a sum of rs.2,000/- (two thousand) and the balance to be paid by non-transferable and non-negotiable bonds carrying interest at the rate of 5.5%. unfortunately, the assistant commissioner has misunderstood the provision of law. he has also committed an error in granting the entire amount to the writ petitioners. therefore, he pleads that the writ appeal be allowed 7 and the writ petitions be dismissed and the order of the assistant commissioner be set aside.6. the same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. he placed reliance on the judgment dated 13.07.1998 passed by the division bench of this court in writ appeal no.2572 of 1997 in the case of b.vasantharam shetty vs. state of karnataka and others, in terms whereof the division bench granted interest at the rate of 16.6% on such claims.7. on considering the contentions, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. section 51(1)(b) of the act is clear and does not call for any interpretation of the amounts due. the land owner is entitled to receive a sum of rs.2,000/- (two thousand) and the balance shall be paid in non- transferable and non-negotiable bonds which shall carry interest at the rate of 5.5%. there are various other conditions mentioned in the section which are not relevant for the present. unfortunately, the 8 assistant commissioner has passed an illegal order granting the entire amount to the writ petitioners. therefore, the petitioners are liable to return the said amount. secondly, the interest at the rate of 5.5% has also been paid to the petitioners which is also an illegal order. therefore, the petitioners are liable to return that amount also.8. so far as the judgment relied upon is concerned, we are of the view that the same cannot be applied to this case. at paragraph 9 in the aforesaid judgment it was held as follows: “9. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the amount is paid in the form of national savings certificate, the amount becomes double within five years, apart from 5 1/2%. if this principle is kept in view, the appellant is entitled to 16.6% interest. this contention is also not disputed.” therein it was held that the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the amount is deposited in a national savings certificate, it would be 9 doubled within 5 years and this is apart from 5 1/2% interest. therefore, keeping this principle in mind 16.6% interest was awarded. we fail to understand as to how 16.6% interest would be granted, which is not granted by law. the law does not grant any interest on any amount due to the petitioners at all. the mandate of section 51(1)(b) of the act is to grant a sum of rs.2,000/- (two thousand) and the rest in non-transferable and non-negotiable bonds which bonds shall carry interest at the rate of 5.5%. the amount payable to the petitioners does not carry interest at all. it is the bonds for a sum beyond rs.2,000/- (two thousand) which shall carry interest. the finding that the amount in national savings certificate doubles within 5 years may have been a justification in the year 1998 when the order was passed. it is undisputed by both sides that there is no question of the money doubling within 5 years in the present scenario. therefore, to follow the judgment delivered in the year 1998 based on the state of 10 economy as of that year and to grant the very same rate of interest today, in our considered view, may not be appropriate. in our view, it is also erroneous that the national savings certificate doubles within 5 years. in fact, it does not. the national savings certificate carries a fixed rate of interest. to that 5.5% interest as accorded in section 51(1)(b) has been added. as stated herein above, 5.5% interest is not payable on any amount to the petitioners. it is a rate of interest that the bonds which will have to carry. therefore, we are of the view that the said judgment cannot be followed in the given facts and circumstances of the case.9. under these circumstances, even though the petitioners are liable to return the entire amount to the state along with 5.5% interest, due to the long passage of time, we do not find it appropriate to so order. however, the order of the assistant commissioner granting interest at the rate of 11.16% 11 requires to be set aside. even though the tahsildar has earlier granted 5.5% interest to the writ petitioners due to the passage of time, we do not think it proper to interfere with the same.10. for the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal is allowed. the order of the learned single judge dated 07.10.2017 passed in w.p.nos.17381-17385 of 2017 is set aside. the order of the assistant commissioner dated 29.09.2016 impugned before the learned single is quashed. sd/- judge sd/- judge hkh.
Judgment:

® 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE24H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL No.1603 OF2018(LR-RES) BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE TAHASILDAR BANTWAL TALUK POST JODUMARGA D.K.DISTRICT-574 219 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP) AND:

1. SMT. SARASWATHI AMMA DAUGHTER OF P SEETHARAMA BHAT AGED ABOUT81YEARS RESIDING AT ADDYEYI HOUSE VEERAKAMBA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK – 574 222 D.K. DISTRICT22. P. SHARADAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE SUBRAYA BHAT AGED ABOUT78YEARS RESIDING AT PUNDIKAI HOUSE VEERAKAMBA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK – 574 222 D.K. DISTRICT3 P. S. LAXMI DAUGHTER OF LATE SUBRAYA BHAT AGED ABOUT76YEARS RESIDING AT PUNDIKAI HOUSE VEERAKAMBA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK – 574 222 D.K. DISTRICT4 P. S. PARVATHI DAUGHTER OF LATE SUBRAYA BHAT AGED ABOUT80YEARS RESIDING AT PUNDIKAI HOUSE VEERAKAMBA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK – 574 222 D.K. DISTRICT5 P. GANAPATHI BHAT SON OF SEETHARAMA BHAT AGED ABOUT51YEARS RESIDING AT ADDYEYI HOUSE VEERAKAMBA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK – 574 222 D.K. DISTRICT ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, A VISHNU BHAT SON OF SEETHARAMA BHAT AGED ABOUT58YEARS RESIDING AT ADDYEYI HOUSE VEERAKAMBA VILLAGE3BANTWAL TALUK – 574 222 D.K. DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION4OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF WRIT PETITION NOS.17381-17385 OF2017AS WELL AS RECORDS OF TAHSILDAR, BANTWAL AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RELATING TO THIS CASE INCLUDING THE ORDER

OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DATED2909.2016 AND THE CASE FILE NO.KLR/CR/93/2001-02 DATED2810.2014 OF TAHSILDAR, BANTWAL AND ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.17381-17385 of 2017, in directing the Tahsildar, Bantwal Taluk, to calculate the interest payable to the petitioners in terms of the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 29.09.2016, respondent nos.1 and 2 therein are in appeal.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge. 4

3. The plea of the petitioners is that they were landlords of various items of lands situated at Bantwal Taluk. The tenancy rights being conferred on the tenants, the lands vested with the State with effect from 01.03.1974 and the petitioners were entitled for compensation. Therefore, they moved the Tahsildar, Bantwal for compensation in respect of their lands. The Tahsildar determined the amount payable in favour of the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 5.5%. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner wherein they have contended that they are entitled for interest at the rate of 16.66%. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner passed the order dated 29.09.2016 directing the Tahsildar, Bantwal Taluk to pay additional interest at 11.16% on the amount determined by the Tahsildar, Bantwal. Since the same was not complied, the instant writ petition was filed seeking its compliance. 5

4. The learned Single Judge directed the Tahsildar to comply with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner with regard to payment of interest. The principal amount having been paid, the proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner only insofar as interest is concerned. The Assistant Commissioner by the order dated 29.09.2016 directed the Tahsildar, Bantwal to pay additional interest at the rate of 11.16%. Questioning the same, respondent nos.1 and 2 are in appeal.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellants submitted that the order of the Assistant Commissioner is erroneous. That there is no question of payment of excess interest on the amount the petitioners are entitled to. That the principal has been paid along with interest at the rate of 5.5%. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on 6 Section 51(1)(b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) which reads as follows: “51. Mode of payment of the amount.- (1) xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (b) if the amount payable exceeds two thousand rupees the amount up to two thousand rupees shall be paid in cash and the balance shall be paid in non-transferable and non-negotiable bonds carrying interest at the rate of five and a half per cent per annum and of guaranteed face value maturing within a specified period not exceeding twenty years: Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” Therefore, he submitted that what the petitioners would be entitled to is only a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand) and the balance to be paid by non-transferable and non-negotiable bonds carrying interest at the rate of 5.5%. Unfortunately, the Assistant Commissioner has misunderstood the provision of law. He has also committed an error in granting the entire amount to the writ petitioners. Therefore, he pleads that the writ appeal be allowed 7 and the writ petitions be dismissed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner be set aside.

6. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. He placed reliance on the judgment dated 13.07.1998 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2572 of 1997 in the case of B.Vasantharam Shetty vs. State of Karnataka and Others, in terms whereof the Division Bench granted interest at the rate of 16.6% on such claims.

7. On considering the contentions, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. Section 51(1)(b) of the Act is clear and does not call for any interpretation of the amounts due. The land owner is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand) and the balance shall be paid in non- transferable and non-negotiable bonds which shall carry interest at the rate of 5.5%. There are various other conditions mentioned in the section which are not relevant for the present. Unfortunately, the 8 Assistant Commissioner has passed an illegal order granting the entire amount to the writ petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to return the said amount. Secondly, the interest at the rate of 5.5% has also been paid to the petitioners which is also an illegal order. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to return that amount also.

8. So far as the judgment relied upon is concerned, we are of the view that the same cannot be applied to this case. At paragraph 9 in the aforesaid judgment it was held as follows: “9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the amount is paid in the form of National Savings Certificate, the amount becomes double within five years, apart from 5 1/2%. If this principle is kept in view, the appellant is entitled to 16.6% interest. This contention is also not disputed.” Therein it was held that the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the amount is deposited in a National Savings Certificate, it would be 9 doubled within 5 years and this is apart from 5 1/2% interest. Therefore, keeping this principle in mind 16.6% interest was awarded. We fail to understand as to how 16.6% interest would be granted, which is not granted by law. The law does not grant any interest on any amount due to the petitioners at all. The mandate of Section 51(1)(b) of the Act is to grant a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand) and the rest in non-transferable and non-negotiable bonds which bonds shall carry interest at the rate of 5.5%. The amount payable to the petitioners does not carry interest at all. It is the bonds for a sum beyond Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand) which shall carry interest. The finding that the amount in National Savings Certificate doubles within 5 years may have been a justification in the year 1998 when the order was passed. It is undisputed by both sides that there is no question of the money doubling within 5 years in the present scenario. Therefore, to follow the judgment delivered in the year 1998 based on the state of 10 economy as of that year and to grant the very same rate of interest today, in our considered view, may not be appropriate. In our view, it is also erroneous that the National Savings Certificate doubles within 5 years. In fact, it does not. The National Savings Certificate carries a fixed rate of interest. To that 5.5% interest as accorded in Section 51(1)(b) has been added. As stated herein above, 5.5% interest is not payable on any amount to the petitioners. It is a rate of interest that the bonds which will have to carry. Therefore, we are of the view that the said judgment cannot be followed in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Under these circumstances, even though the petitioners are liable to return the entire amount to the State along with 5.5% interest, due to the long passage of time, we do not find it appropriate to so order. However, the order of the Assistant Commissioner granting interest at the rate of 11.16% 11 requires to be set aside. Even though the Tahsildar has earlier granted 5.5% interest to the writ petitioners due to the passage of time, we do not think it proper to interfere with the same.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2017 passed in W.P.Nos.17381-17385 of 2017 is set aside. The order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 29.09.2016 impugned before the learned Single is quashed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hkh.