- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420 WP No. 113847 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 113847 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UKP, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KESHAVREDDY M., AAG ALONG WITH SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA) AND: SMT. ADIVEMMA D/O. BASAYYA GANACHARI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIR. 1. ALLAYYA S/O. IRAYYA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. SHIVALINGAVVA D/O. IRAYYA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. 3. PRABHAYYA BASAYYA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 4. IRAYYA MAHARUDRAYYA GANACHARI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS. 4A. SHRI RACHAYYA S/O. IRAYYA SARGANACHARI, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420 WP No. 113847 of 2019 4B. SHRI BASAYYA S/O. IRAYYA SARGANACHARI, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 4C. SHRI MALLAYYA S/O. IRAYYA SARGANACHARI, AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 4D. SHRI SOMAYYA S/O. IRAYYA SARGANACHARI, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 4E. SMT. BASAMMA W/O. PADAKASHARAYYA HIREMATH, AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 4F. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. SHANTAYYA MATHAD, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT-587103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3 AND R4(A) TO R4(F); HCGP FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE EXECUTING COURT IN EP.NO.5/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BAGALKOT AT BAGALKOT BY ORDER DATED 21.02.2019 AND 20.04.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420 WP No. 113847 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Bagalkote, challenging the order dated 21.02.2019 and 20.04.2019 in E.P.No.5/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkote 2. Sri M.Keshav Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner submits that in the execution proceedings, the petitioner-judgment debtor has filed a memo of calculation which is based on the total award amount, component of interest and solatium less the amount withdrawn. However, the trial Court under the impugned order accepted the memo of calculation filed by the decree holder and ordered to deposit ₹2,19,48,617/- without assigning any reasons. It is submitted that the memo of calculation filed by the decree holder is perused. They have calculated 12% additional market value at two instances, which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned orders. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420 WP No. 113847 of 2019 3. Per contra, Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-decree holder supports the impugned order of the Execution Court and submits that the memo of calculation filed by the decree holder before this Court on 17.02.2025 is very clear with regard to the principal amount, solatium, 12% interest, less the amount paid by the SLAO and thereafter, it is arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners are required to pay ₹6,69,780,072/- as on the date of filing of the memo of calculation before this Court. Hence he seeks to dismiss the petition by directing the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned AAG, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent's land has been acquired for public purpose, award came to be passed and thereafter the reference Court enhanced the compensation amount to ₹90/- per square feet. Records indicate that the respondent filed E.P.No.189/2013 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkote to execute the judgment and award - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420 WP No. 113847 of 2019 passed in LAC No.81/2002. The order sheet of the said proceedings indicates that the petitioners have deposited a certain amount and thereafter the parties have filed a memo of calculation. The Executing Court under the impugned order accepted the memo of calculation filed by the respondent- decree holder by directing the petitioner-judgment debtor to deposit ₹2,19,48,617/-. The perusal of the order impugned does not indicate any reasons for accepting the memo of calculation filed by the respondent-decree holder. This court vide order dated 04.09.2025 has directed Additional Registrar General of this Court to verify both the memo of calculation filed by the parties and submit the report. The report of the ARG is placed. The perusal of the report indicates that respondents No.1 to 4 have calculated the interest at the rate of 15% for 5229 days on the balance amount of ₹14,38,41,290/- whereas the petitioner calculated the interest for 4480 days. It is further observed that the records as well as the memo of calculation does not disclose as to why there is a disparity in calculating the interest for 749 days between the memo calculation filed by the parties. The report also indicates that as per the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner, there is no amount due as on the said day. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420 WP No. 113847 of 2019 However, the respondent contended that there is a due of ₹ 6,69,78,072/- and the difference between the claim of the petitioner and respondent is wide and the same cannot be assessed without the benefit of the trial Court records. 6. I have perused the report of the ARG and also the memo of calculations filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent and the impugned order. I am of the considered view that the order impugned does not indicate the reason for arriving at a conclusion that there is a due of ₹2,19,48,617/-. The respondents are now claiming that there is a due of ₹6,69,78,072/- as on the date of filing of the memo of calculation before this Court i.e. 17.02.2024. In my considered view, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Executing Court to reconsider the memo of calculations afresh by permitting the parties to file their own memo of calculation in the said proceedings. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 21.02.2019 and 20.04.2019 passed in E.P.No.5/2016 by the II - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420 WP No. 113847 of 2019 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkote is set aside. iii. The Executing Court is directed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondent/decree holder to file their memo of calculation afresh and thereafter consider the same in accordance with law. iv. It is needless to observe that the Executing Court shall consider the memo of calculation and dispose off the case as expeditiously as possible. v. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits and demerits of the case. vi. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2