N K S MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in all these matters, the petitioners have claimed interest as against the state at 5 1/2% on cash payment of compensation amount either paid in part or in full under Section 51 of the Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to in brief as the act), firstly on the ground that the lands were vested in the state from the appointed day i.e., 1-3-1974 and secondly that they were deprived of the rentals they were receiving till that appointed day from the tenants. They also questioned the rationals on the part of the state for limiting the award of interest only to the amount deferred and paid in the form of national savings certificate. In writ petition No. 18591 of 1988 the petitioner also questioned the rejection of his request for such a claim as at Annexure 'c' to the writ petition issued by the tahsildar, chikkodi and further the circular issued by the state government as at Annexure 'd' to the writ petition explaining the mode of calculations of the compensation amount and the interest under Section 51 of the act.

(2.) i heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Soal so, the learned government pleader appearing for the state and other authorities in the cases. I have also perused the records pertaining to the cases.

(3.) Sri t.n. raghupathy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 18591 of 1988 had argued that as on 1-3-1974, all the tenanted lands vested in the government as per Section 44 of the act and that under Section 44(7) of the act every landowner, landlord and every person interested in the land whose rights have been vested in the state government under clause (a) of the said Section shall be entitled to receive compensation with interest, that there is no rationale in differentiating in the matter of awarding of interest between the amount paid in cash either in part or in full and the amount paid in national savings certificates for deferred payments. Under these circumstances, he pointed out that the circular as at Annexure 'd' to the writ petition issued by the government, to stating that no interest is payable on the compensation paid in cash in unjust and untenable and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He had also pointed out that the endorsement as at Annexure 'c' intimating the petitioner that no interest is payable on the cash payment (compensation in view of the circular at Annexure 'd' is also bad insofar as the same is issued without the petitioner not being heard in the matter. Sri t.n. raghupathy further argued that, right from the appointed day i.e., 1-3-1974 down to the day on which the landowners are paid with compensation, the landowners are deprived of the rentals that were paid by the tenants earlier, in respect of their lands and therefore, according to him, there is no justification for the landowners to be deprived of that benefit by refusing the award of interest on the cash payment of the compensation either paid in full or in part. Sri t.n. raghupathy further argued that on all belated payments which are statutorily liable to be paid by the state, the state cannot avoid the liability of payment of interest thereon. In support of that argument, he had also cited before me the following four reported decisions and further an unreported decision: