MALLIKARJUN S/O SIDDARAMAYYA HIREMATH vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.86341/2012 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: Mallikarjun S/o Siddaramayya Hiremath Age: 45 years, Occ: Agri, R/o Hire-Kotnekal, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur-584101. …Petitioner (Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka Represented by The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Works, Bangalore-560001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner

2 Raichur-584101. 3. The Project Director, PIU, K-SHIP, Bangalore-560001. 4. The Executive Engineer Project Division, K-SHIP Raichur-584101. ... Respondents (Sri.Manvendra Reddy, Govt. Advocate for R1 to R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for release of interest and other statutory benefits and for refund of amount Rs.90,305/- deducted towards TDS vide Annexures-E, F and G. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.137/2/A situated at Bhogavati village Taluk Manvi. The said land was having an open Well which was irrigating 16 acres of the land. The said Well was constructed by utilizing 6 guntas of land. The Well and

3 the land appurtenant thereto were utilized by the State Government for widening of the road. It is needless to observe that regular acquisition process was not adopted by the respondents. However, undisputedly the Well and the land appurtenant thereto were taken possession of by the respondents by dispossessing the petitioner for widening of road. Such dispossession of the petitioner was made in the year 2003. In that regard, an order came to be passed by the State Government on 04.06.2010 awarding damages to the tune of Rs.9,03,050/- to the petitioner. The said amount was quantified by the respondents based on the DSR Rates of the year 2003-2004. The damages/compensation of Rs.9,03,050/- was paid to the petitioner on 27.08.2010. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not paying the interest from the date of dispossession till the date of payment of compensation/

4 damages. Hence, he made representations as per Annexures-‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘G’. Since, no action is taken, this writ petition is filed. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the petitioner was entitled to compensation as per law and though the compensation is paid to the tune of Rs.9,03,050/-, the respondents have illegally deducted the tax at source while disbursing the said amount. It is his further case that even after deducting the tax at source, Form No.16A is not issued in favour of the petitioner to claim refund. 2. Undisputedly, the open Well of the petitioner and the land appurtenant thereto was taken possession of by the respondents for widening of road and for which the damages to the tune of Rs.9,03,050/- was paid based on DSR Rules of the year 2003-2004. The petitioner was dispossessed in the year 2003. However,

5 the damages was paid on 27.08.2010. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner may be entitled to interest from the date of dispossession till the date of payment. The rules of natural justice/general rule require that the person who is entitled for compensation shall be paid interest also in case if the payment of compensation is delayed. In this regard, it is relevant to note the observations made in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Aresh @ Ashok J. Mehta Vs. Special Tahsildar, Belgaum (Civil Appeal No.5519 of 2005 decided on 11.03.2013) wherein it is held observed thus: “23. In view of the specific clarification made vide Circular dated 24th November, 1986 and decision of this Court in Satinder Singh (Supra), we hold that the appellant is entitled for interest w.e.f. 1.3.1974 @ 5% till the total amount was paid to him. The respondent cannot deny the interest on the amount of compensation to which

6 the appellant is entitled as a matter of general rule, and in the light of the clarification made by Circular dated 24.11.1986.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court while observing so had relied upon the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Singh Vs. Umrao Singh reported in AIR 1961 SC 908. 3. Since the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of compensation as a matter of general rule, the following order is made: Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be paid 5% interest on Rs.9,03,050/- from 01.04.2004 (date of dispossession) to 27.08.2010 (date of payment of compensation/damages). The deduction of tax at source while paying compensation/damages is not proper as is clear from 2nd proviso to Section 194L of the Income Tax Act.

7 Since the tax is already said to have been deducted at source, the respondents are directed to issue Form No.16A to the petitioner to take further steps as per law.

Sd/- JUDGE swk