Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24901 (KAR)

SRI CHIKKAMADHU v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

WP/28660/2025 · 2026-06-24

R Nataraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31433 WP No. 28660 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28660 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. CHIKKAMADHU S/O LATE CHIKKAPUTTASHETTY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIRANJANA M., ADVOCATE) AND: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA) JANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE-570001 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN LAC/YN/(2) 28(A) 14/4/2002-03 DATED 10.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31433 WP No. 28660 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an order bearing No.LAC/YN/(2)/28(A)/14/4/2002-03 dated 10.06.2024 passed by the respondent in so far as it relates to granting interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of preliminary notification till the date of payment. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to re-determine the interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of preliminary notification. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that his land was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the respondent for formation of Lal Bahaddur Shastri Nagar. He contends that he filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for re-determining the compensation, which was registered as LAC No.247/2005 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Mysuru. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.3579/2023 concerning the proceedings under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, which was allowed in part and the respondent was directed to pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31433 WP No. 28660 of 2025 Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent then passed an order bearing No.LAC/YN/(2)/28(A)/14/4/2002-03 dated 10.06.2024 in terms of which, interest was calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of preliminary notification. (ii) The petitioner claims that he is entitled to the interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of preliminary notification till the date of payment. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the respondent in so far as it relates to interest awarded and seeks for a direction for payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of preliminary notification. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is deprived of the property in question and that the respondent had not given adequate compensation within a reasonable time and that the petitioner had to move this Court for considering his application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the respondent is bound to make good, the loss of opportunity to the petitioner by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31433 WP No. 28660 of 2025 awarding the interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of preliminary notification. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the petitioner is awarded 12% interest from the date of preliminary notification till the date of payment i.e., from 15.07.1997 to 31.01.2003. He contends that 15% interest can be awarded only in cases where the payment is not made within one year from the date of the award. He thus, contends that the petitioner has been granted all the benefits that he is entitled to and there is no statutory entitlement for the petitioner to claim interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of preliminary notification. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The award of interest is governed under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads as follows:- "34. Payment of interest.- When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31433 WP No. 28660 of 2025 the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited: Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry." 7. The petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date he lost possession till the date the compensation is paid. If any part of the compensation is paid into the Court after the date of expiry of the period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum is payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year. In the instant case, the petitioner has been granted interest at the rate of 12% from the date of preliminary notification till the date of payment and there is no reason why the petitioner should be granted interest at the rate of 15% particularly when there are no particulars as to when - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31433 WP No. 28660 of 2025 the award was passed, when the compensation was paid and when possession of the acquired land was taken from the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. 8. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29