advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
state of karnataka
just relief to the builders etc., even though the acquisition was quashed and approved by Apex court=In the result, the appeals are dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that some of the members of the appellant may have built their houses on the sites allotted to them, we give liberty to the appellant to negotiate with the respondents for purchase of their land at the prevailing market price and hope that the landowners will, notwithstanding the judgments of the High Court and this Court, agree to accept the market price so that those who have
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7425-26 OF 2002 Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. … Appellant versus State of Karnataka and others … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 774-778 OF 2005 J U D G M E N T G. S. Singhvi, J. 1. These appeals … Continue reading
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Interest on solatium – Liability to pay – Decision in **Gurpreet Singh case, that interest on solatium could be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the execution court would be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of judgment in *Sunder case (19.9.2001) and not prior to that date – Interpretation of words `closed execution’ in Paragraph 54 of Gurpreet Singh** case and relevance of the date of decision in *Sunder case – Held: If main proceeding arising from landowner’s claim for enhanced compensation remains pending before civil court or at the appellate stage, it is not deemed to be closed even if the award/decree passed by collector/civil court was put to execution and payment received by landowners in terms of award/decree – The stipulation that any interest on solatium can only be granted for period subsequent to the decision in *Sunder i.e. 19.9.2001, does not circumscribe the power of the court dealing with the main proceeding relating to enhancement of compensation and it is a limitation on the power of execution court. A Constitution Bench of this Court pronounced the judgment in *Sunder case on September 19, 2001 which settled the issue regarding the liability of payment of interest on the amount of solatium. The applicability of the decision in *Sunder case was explained and clarified in another Constitution Bench decision in **Gurpreet Singh case. It was explained that such interest on solatium could be claimed only in pending executions and not in “closed executions” and the execution court would be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of judgment in *Sunder (19.9.2001) and not prior to that date. The issues which arose for consideration in these groups of appeals viz. Groups A, B, C and D pertain to the interpretation of the term `closed execution’ as used in paragraph 54 of decision in **Gurpreet Singh case and the relevance of the date of decision in *Sunder case. = Disposing of the appeals, the Court Held: (Group A) 1. The reference to “closed executions” in Para 54 of judgment in **Gurpreet Singh does not mean cases in which the main proceeding arising from the landowner’s claim for enhanced compensation remains pending before the civil court or at the appellate stage. It may sometimes happen that the award of the Collector or the decree of the civil court is put to execution and payments are made in terms of the award or the decree of the civil court and in that sense the award or the decree is satisfied. Nevertheless, an appeal against the award or the decree of the civil court may still remain pending either before the High Court or even before this Court. In appeal, the superior court may enhance the compensation which would lead to enhancement of solatium and consequently the interest on the additional amounts of compensation and solatium. In such a situation, the landowner/claimant would be bound to go back to the execution court for realisation of the additional amounts in terms of the modified decree. In such cases, the execution proceedings cannot be deemed to be closed and neither was it the intent of the observations in the decision in **Gurpreet Singh. The stipulation in the decision in **Gurpreet Singh that any interest on solatium can only be granted for the period subsequent to September 19, 2001, the date of the decision in *Sunder, it is evident that this again, was a limitation on the power of the execution court. The direction in no way circumscribes the power of the court dealing with the main proceeding relating to enhancement of the compensation. The matter can be looked at from another angle. The appeal being the continuation of the original proceeding, in the facts of the cases in this sub-group, there can be no question of accrual of interest only after the date of the decision in *Sunder . [Para 13] [842-D-H; 843-A-G] **Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457 – held inapplicable. *Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 – referred to. (Group B) 2. State had made payment of interest on the amount of Solatium to the respondents-landowners. Interest was paid, however, up to the year 2002 and not up to September 11, 2005 when the actual payment was made. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay to the respective respondents/land owners the balance amounts of interest on solatium for the period from 2002 to 11.9.2005. [Para 17, 19] [844-F-H; 845-D] (Group C) 3. In view of the orders passed in the cases in the sub-groups B, all these Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. [Para 24] [846-B] (Group D) 4. From the facts, it is manifest and clear that on September 19, 2001 when the decision in *Sunder was rendered, the land acquisition proceedings (including the execution proceedings) were over and closed. The reference court had given its decision and the modified award was fully satisfied; all payments in terms of the award of the reference court were made to the landowners/claimants. After the decision in *Sunder, an appeal was filed against the judgment and award given by the reference court. That effort remained unsuccessful. Then a review petition was filed before the reference court and the matter was finally brought to the High Court in revision against the order passed by the reference court. It is, thus, patent that a concluded and closed proceeding was sought to be revived by the device of filing a review petition and then filing a revision against the order dismissing the review petition. This was plainly impermissible in view of the decision of this court in paragraph 54, in **Gurpreet Singh. [Para 33] [849-E-H; 850-A] Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457, held applicable. Case law reference: (2006) 8 SCC 457 held inapplicable [Paras 1, 2, 11, 12, 13] (2001) 7 SCC 211 referred to [Paras 1, 11, 13, 30] (2006) 8 SCC 457 held applicable [Paras 17, 33, 34] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s). 4988-5047 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 01.06.2004 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Civil Revision Petition Nos., 650, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1345, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1666, 1668, 1670, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1678, 1679, 1683, 1684, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689, 1690 and 1691 of 2003. With C.A. Nos. 5052, 5053, 5054, 5058, 5057, 5055, 5056, 5061, 5059, 5060, 5062, 5065, 5066, 5067 of 2010, SLP (C) Nos. 20021, 20022, 20023 & 20024 of 2005, 5063, 5064, 5069, 5068, 5048-5051 of 2010, SLP (C) Nos. 241 of 2006, 25015 of 2005, S.L.P.(C)…CC NO. 4641 of 2005, S.L.P. (C)…CC NO. 4646, S.L.P. (C)…CC NO. 5375, S.L.P. (C)…CC NO. 5402, S.L.P. (C)…CC NO. 5505, S.L.P.(C)…CCNO. 5521, S.L.P. (C)…CCNO. 5831, S.L.P.(C)…CC NO. 5835, S.L.P. (C)…CC NO. 5841 of 2005, S.L.P. (C)…CC NO. 5853, S.L.P. (C)…CC NO. 5899. S.L.P. (C)…CC NO. 5923, SLP (C) NO. 9504 of 2005. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Rohen Singh, Ramesh Mishra, Rajesh Mahale, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Ajay Kumar M., Ajit S Bhasme, Kiran Suri, S.J.Amith, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Mohan V. Katarki, Javed Mahmud Rao for the Appearing parties.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4988-5047, 5048-5051, 5052 & 5053 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.25319-25378 of 2004, 23075-23078/2005, 12386/2006 & 1801/2007) LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT.COMMNR. & ANR. …Appellants VERSUS SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR & ORS. …Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5054, 5055, 5056, 5057, 5058, … Continue reading
when part performance can be invoked – “The vacant site as mentioned in the schedule below which is in my possession acquired through the registered Sale Deed dated 05.05.1980 registered in the Office of the Sub- Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk, in Book No. 1, Volume 3236 page 210-230 No. 1363, I have hereby given the power in favour of you to look after and manage completely on my behalf as I am unable to manage for inevitable reasons.” (underlining ours) 10. Had defendant no.3 Jayamma got possession of the property in pursuance of the agreement to sale dated 27th November, 1982, there was no occasion for Honnanna to recite in clear terms that he was in possession of the property. In view of the
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2006 OF 2006 NANJEGOWDA & ANR. Appellant(s) Versus GANGAMMA & Ors. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T CHANDRMAULI KR.PRASAD,J. 1. Defendant No.1 Nanjegowda and his wife defendant No.3 Jayamma are before us by special leave against the judgment and decree … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 