- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4100 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 1922 OF 2022 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 2389 OF 2022 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 2759 OF 2022 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 3929 OF 2022 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 4029 OF 2022 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 5381 OF 2022 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 5429 OF 2022 (LA-RES) IN WP No. 4100/2022 BETWEEN: SMT. M.S.SOUBHAGYA W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NEW M.C.ROAD MADDUR TOWN, MADDUR MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 439. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WORKS) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS BENGALURU - 560 046. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA TOWN - 571 401. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.12.2021 AT ANNEXURE-K IN EX.NO.36/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, MANDYA AND TO ACCEPT THE MEMO OF CALCULATION AS PER ANNEXURES-E AND F TO THIS PETITION. IN WP NO. 1922/2022 BETWEEN: SRI CHANNAPPA S/O SRI YALAKKIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT PETE BEEDI MADDUR TOWN AND TLAUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 439. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R. V., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS AND: 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WORKS) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS BENGALURU – 560 046. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA TOWN – 571 401. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.16.12.2021 AT ANNEXURE-J IN EX NO.29/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE MADDUR MANDYA AND TO ACCEPT THE MEMO OF CALCULATION AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND E TO THIS W.P. IN WP NO. 2389/2022 BETWEEN: SRI M.J.SHIVANANJU S/O SRI GOOLIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT PETE BEEDI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS NO.66/B, MADDUR TOWN MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 439. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WORKS) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS BENGALURU – 560 046. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA TOWN – 571 401. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 16.12.2021 VIDE ANNX-J IN EX NO.03/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, MANDYA AND TO ACCEPT THE MEMO OF CALCULATION VIDE ANNX-C AND D TO THIS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS PETITION. IN WP NO. 2759/2022 BETWEEN: SRI CHANNAPPA ALIAS CHIKKONU S/O SRI EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS SBM ROAD MADDUR TOWN AND TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 439. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WORKS) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS BENGALURU – 560 046. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA TOWN – 571 401. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2 TO R4) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 16.12.2021 VIDE ANNX-J IN EX NO.32/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, MANDYA AND TO ACCEPT THE MEMO OF CALCULATION VIDE ANNX-D AND E TO THIS PETITION, IN ORDER TO SECURE THE ENDS OF THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WP NO. 3929/2022 BETWEEN: SMT. N.BHAGYA W/O SRI M.S.INDU KUMAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NEW M.C.ROAD MADDUR TOWN, MADDUR MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 439. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WORKS) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS BENGALURU - 560 046. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA TOWN - 571 401. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS MANDYA - 571 401. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.16.12.2021 AT ANNEXURE-K IN EX NO.34/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE SR CIVIL JUDGE MADDUR MANDYA AND TO ACCEPT THE MEMO OF CALCULATION AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND F TO THIS W.P. IN ORDER TO SECURE. IN WP NO. 4029/2022 BETWEEN: SMT. M.V.PADMA W/O SRI M.RAMU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.711 ‘B’ BLOCK PREMIER METROPOLIS NEXT TO PREMIER STUDIO JAYALAKSHMIPURA MYSURU - 571 439. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WORKS) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS BENGALURU - 560 046. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA TOWN - 571 401. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.12.2021 AT ANNEXURE-K IN EX.NO.33/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, MANDYA AND TO ACCEPT THE MEMO OF CALCULATION AS PER ANNEXURES-E AND F TO THIS PETITION. IN WP NO. 5381/2022 BETWEEN: SRI M.S.SOMASHEKAR S/O SRI SIDDAPPA AGE: MAJOR R/AT T.B.CIRCLE MADDUR TOWN, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 439. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER WORKS SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS BENGALURU – 560 046. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS 2. THE SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA TOWN - 571 401. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 16.12.2021 VIDE ANNX-K IN EX NO.30/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE, MADDUR, MANDYA AND TO ACCEPT THE MEMO OF CALCULATION VIDE ANNX-D AND E TO THIS PETITION. IN WP NO. 5429/2022 BETWEEN: SRI H.V.LAKSHMANAGOWDA S/O SRI VEERANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.G1, ARCHITHA-11 18TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP, RR NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 018. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R. V., ADVOCATE) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS AND: 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (WORKS) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS BENGALURU – 560 046. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA TOWN - 571 401. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.12.2021 AT ANNEXURE-K IN EX.NO.31/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, MANDYA THEREBY ACCEPTING THE MEMO OF CALCULATION AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND D TO THIS PETITION. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners in all these cases are decree holders and are before the Court on a solitary ground that the Executing Court accepting the memos of calculation submitted by the Registry and not the memos of calculation submitted by the petitioners or the respondents, has passed the impugned orders, all dated 16.12.2021, by the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur, Mandya, in the respective execution petitions. 2. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar R.V., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri A. Chandra Chud, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M. Rajakumar, learned AGA for respondent Nos.2 and 3, in all the petitions. 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts obtaining in W.P.No.4100/2022 would be narrated. 4. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: On 30.03.2011, respondent No.2 by its preliminary notification proposed to acquire lands bearing survey Nos.81/4 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS and 82/4, measuring 11.06 acres respectively. On 28.10.2011, a notification was issued under Section 16(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. General awards in respect of the lands in question were passed determining compensation. The reference Court later considered the petitions seeking reference partially. 5. The petitioners then file a memo of calculation bringing it to the notice of the concerned Court that a sum of ₹3,18,236/- is still in due. When this was not accepted, a second memo of calculation is filed by the decree holders indicating that an amount of Rs.20,452/- is still in due and they are entitled to the said sum. The first respondent also files a memo of calculation holding that the memo of calculation made by the Office does not tally with the calculation as is necessary. The concerned Court does not consider the memos filed by both the petitioners and the respondents and considers the memo of calculation made by the Office. The amounts are at different figures in the companion petitions. The concerned Court in terms of the order impugned accepts the memo of calculation made by the Office indicating an excess sum paid in favour of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS the petitioner, which is contrary to the facts, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal at the order of the concerned Court or the memo of calculations filed by the parties would vindicate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The concerned Court rejecting the claim of the petitioner has ordered as follows: “The counsel for the Dhr submitted that, in the award by the Reference Court, the date of possession is not described to ascertain the additional market value as such, the Executing Court cannot go beyond the award passed by the Reference Court. In 2009(1) KCCR 694 cited above Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines for calculating the balance amount of compensation payable by the Jdr wherein, in para 61(2) it is observed that the executing Court while determining the additional market value in terms of the award should calculate the same in terms of Sec.23(1-A) of the Act. Even though, the Reference Court has shown the date of award but, under the said provision the date of award or date of possession whichever is earlier is to be taken into account to determine the additional market value and to be calculated from the date of publication of 4(1) notification. Hence, by applying the guidelines of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the above cited case and also the statutory provision this Court views that, the office calculation of determining the additional market value from the date of publication of 4(1) notification till date possession is correct. On the other hand, the claimants have wrongly taken the date of award as the date for calculating the additional market value and the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS said calculation is not as per the provision of the statute. Hence, the memo of calculation filed by the claimants cannot be accepted. Memo of calculation was filed by the Jdr 1 contending they have deposited excess amount of Rs.7,17,528/-. The procedure adopted by them to lessen the 30% solatium and 12% additional market value paid by them is not as per the guidelines given by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in 2009(1) KCCR 694 cited above. Hence, the overall calculation made by the Jdr No.1 is wrongly arrived at. Hence, said calculation cannot be accepted. Based on above said reasonings, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The memo of calculation filed by the Dhr dated 20.02.2021 and 30.07.2021 and the memo of calculation filed by the Jdr dated 19.08.2021 is hereby rejected. The office calculation dated 05.06.2021 is hereby accepted. The record reveals excess amount of Rs.6,20,596/- is deposited by the Jdr which is to be refunded to the Jdr on producing the voucher. The record also reveals excess amount of Rs.52,463/-which is deposited by the Jdr has been wrongly paid to the Dhr. The Dhr is directed to redeposit Rs.52,463/- to this Court by next date. As per above reasoning, the Dhr/claimant has received the entire compensation along with interest due towards him. Since the entire compensation is received by the Dhr, the attachment order passed by this Court on 24.01.2020 is hereby - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS withdrawn. Office is directed to intimate the same to the concerned official.” (Emphasis added) 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents in unison would submit that the memos of calculation submitted by both the parties to the lis are not taken note of, but the concerned Court considers the calculation made by the Office, which has caused grave prejudice to the parties. 8. In that light, the petitions are to be allowed, impugned orders in all these cases are to be obliterated and the matters are to be remanded to the concerned Court to consider the memos of calculation submitted by the parties and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petitions are allowed. b. The impugned orders, all dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur, Mandya, stand quashed. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32984 WP No. 4100 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1922 of 2022 WP No. 2389 of 2022 AND 5 OTHERS c. The matters are remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to consider the memos of calculation submitted by both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. d. The amount in deposit in all the petitions, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned Court. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT:SS