Miss Lucy
← All judgments

K.V. Shivkumar And Anr. vs Appropriate Authority And Ors.

Supreme Court14 January 2002B.N. Kirpal · D.P. Mohapatra · R.P. Sethi

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a compulsory purchase has been set aside by court, the Department is not entitled to retain monies deposited pursuant to the auction sale arising from that compulsory purchase merely on the ground that the balance bid amount was not deposited; such retention amounts to forfeiture, which must be established by affirmative proof and cannot be presumed. When monies have been deposited in an auction pursuant to a compulsory purchase that is subsequently set aside, the court will not adjudicate between competing claimants to those monies, but will direct the depositing authority to place the amount with the court, leaving it to the parties to approach the appropriate court for determination of entitlement and disbursement in accordance with law. Monies deposited in a compulsory purchase proceeding that is set aside must be refunded with interest at nine per cent per annum from the date of deposit until refund or deposit with the court.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

ORDER

1. In the instant case there was compulsory purchase of the property which was sought to be sold. It is not in dispute that after the compulsory purchase the property was put to auction. The applicant-Shivkumar bid for Rs. 2,77,00,000 and a sum of Rs. 47,01,000 was deposited with the Department. This compulsory purchase has been set aside by this court and as a result thereof the said amount of Rs. 47,01,000 is claimed by the applicant along with interest. It is the case of the Department that out of the bid amount only a sum of Rs. 47,01,000 was deposited and the balance was not deposited and therefore the amount deposited is liable to be forfeited.

2. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the learned senior counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the respondent D.P. Sharma states that his client had contributed 1/3rd of this amount as a joint purchaser and the entire sum of Rs. 47,01,000 is not due and payable to Shivkumar. It is stated that some litigation (WP No. 40340 of 2001) is going on between the parties in the High Court at Bangalore.

3. In our opinion, as far as the department is concerned, it is certainly not entitled to retain the sum of Rs. 47,01,000 which had been deposited pursuant to the auction sale when the compulsory purchase itself has been set aside. It is the case of the Department now before us that this amount has been forfeited because the balance amount had not been deposited.

There is nothing on record to indicate the action of any such forfeiture. Furthermore, it is not for this court to go into the question as to whether whole or any part of this amount of Rs. 47,01,000 is to be refunded to Shivkumar alone or someone else is also entitled to have a share in it.

4. In our opinion, it will be appropriate to direct the Department to deposit this amount of Rs. 47,01,000 along with interest at the rate of nine per cent, from the date of payment till the date of deposit with the Registrar, Karnataka High Court. This deposit should be made within a period of eight weeks. Liberty is given to the parties to approach the High Court for appropriate

orders with regard to the disbursement of the said amount. It will be open to the parties to raise such contentions as may be available to them in accordance with law. It is clarified that it will be open to the Department to prove that this amount of Rs. 47,01,000 stands forfeited.

5. In the second round of compulsory purchase a sum of Rs. 1,55,00,000 was deposited by Shivkumar. That amount after deducting any amount, if already paid, has to be refunded to Shivkumar with interest at the rate of nine per cent, per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. This refund should be made within eight weeks. No dispute is raised by any party with regard to this amount of Rs. 1,55,00,000.

6. Both the review petitions as well as the interlocutory application are disposed of.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free