REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL Vs. FAKIRAGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these 15 Civil Revision petitions the petitioner being aggrieved by the common order dated 8-6-2004 passed in Execution case Nos. 9/04, 10/04, 11/04, 18/04, 34/03, 41/03, 42/03, 43/03, 50/03 and 51/03, 78/04, 79/04, 80/04, 81/04 and 82/04 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), dharwad, has presented the instant Civil Revision Petitions.

(2.) THE respondents herein filed Execution petitions on the file of Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Dharwad, as referred to i above. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Execution Court on 8-6-2004. The Execution Court after hearing both the sides and after considering the material available on record has passed a common order in respect of 15 Execution Petitions as referred to above, by holding that deduction of income-tax on interest payable under section 28 or 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is not permissible and the objections raised by the JDR-petitioner herein was rejected. Assailing the correctness of the impugned common orders passed by the Execution Court as stated supra, the petitioner being a beneficiary of the acquisition felt necessitated to present the instant Revision Petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these cases Sri S. J. Puranik and the learned Government Pleader at the outset submitted that, the impugned common order passed by the Execution Court is liable to be set aside at threshold on the ground that the execution Court has committed grave error and has passed the order contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 194-A read with section 194 of the Income-tax Act. The Court below ought not to have held that the deduction of income-tax on the interest payable under Section 28 or 34 of the Land Acquisition act is not permissible as the same is one without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory provisions. To substantiate the said submission sri S. J. Puranik placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of bikram Singh and others v. Land Acquisition collector and others reported in (1997) 10 scc 243 and submitted that it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income-tax. When once the claimants are made to pay the income-tax, that portion of the amount should be deducted and thereafter the remaining amount may be paid to the claimants as provided under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. Inadvertently, the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the government Pleader appearing for the respondent-L. A. O. , have not brought to the notice of the Court below, the settled proposition of law as referred to above. Further, he submitted that following the judgment of the Apex Court and the Division bench of Delhi High Court in the case of shankar and others v. Union of India and others reported in (2003) 260 ITR 284, the Court below has held that the respondents-claimants are liable to pay income-tax on the belated payment of interest received thereon. Therefore, the Court below held that the respondents-claimants are liable to pay income-tax regarding the belated payment of interest received by them. Therefore he submitted that the impugned common order passed by the execution Court is liable to be set aside.