(Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, JJ.)
Rudragouda ________________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Assistant Commissioner and Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Anr. _______________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2017 [@ Special Leave Petition No. 27066 of 2015], decided on January 4, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The question raised in the instant matter is whether the appellant is entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or as directed by the High Court vide its Orders dated 17.04.2015.
4. The High Court, while deciding the Review Petition, has observed that the appellant is entitled to interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, but since the mistake has been committed by the Court itself, respondents should not be saddled with the payment of interest after 1.10.2013.
5. In our view, once the High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation as per the provisions of the Act, the appellant cannot be made to suffer only on the ground that the mistake has been committed by the Court itself.
6. In Civil Appeal Nos. 9060-9062 of 2014 decided by this Court, the compensation has been enhanced.
7. Accordingly, the instant Civil Appeal is allowed and it is held that the appellant shall be entitled to interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act till its realisation. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside to the aforesaid extent.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27066/2015
Rudragouda ________________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Assistant Commissioner and Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Anr ___________________________________________ Respondent(s)
Date : 04/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Adv.
Ms. Taherabi. K., Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Joseph Aristotle S. Adv.
Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Adv.
Ms. K. Priyadarshini, Adv.
Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Adv.
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
8. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
