- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26030 WP No. 56058 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.56058 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SHAKTI BHAVAN, NO.82, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAXMIDEVI W/O. T. T. DINAKAR, R/O. K.C. STREET, THIRTHAHALLI TOWN. REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES; 1(A) PRATHIMA NAGRAJ D/O LATE LAXMIDEVI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KC STREET, THIRTHAHALLI TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 432. 1(B) PURNIMA T.D., D/O LATE LAXMIDEVI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KC STREET, THIRTHAHALLI TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 432. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26030 WP No. 56058 of 2017 1(C) ANUPAMA T.D., D/O LATE LAXMIDEVI, R/AT KC STREET, THIRTHAHALLI TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 432. 2. SRI. NAGAPPA E.D. S/O. LATE DUGGAAPPA GOWDA, R/O. AREHALLI, JAYANAGAR POST, HOSANAGAR TALUK. 3. SRI. E. D. VENKATESH S/O. LATE DUGAPPA GOWDA, R/O. DODDINAMANE, KARNAPURA POST, HOSANAGARA TALUK. 4. SRI. H. V. ESHWARAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA, R/O. KATTEKOPPA, HOSANAGAR TALUK. REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES; 4(A) SMT. DAKAMMA W/O H.V.ESHWARAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMBALLI, THEKKUR (PO), SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU - 630 201. 4(B) SRI. SATISH E. S/O H.V.ESHWARAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMBALLI, THEKKUR (PO), SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU - 630 201. 4(C) SMT. POORNIMA E., D/O H.V.ESHWARAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMBALLI, THEKKUR (PO), SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU - 630 201. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26030 WP No. 56058 of 2017 4(D) SRI. MAHESH E., S/O H.V.ESHWARAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMBALLI, THEKKUR (PO), SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU - 630 201. 5. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CHAKRA, SAVEHALLI AND VARAHI, PROJECTS, HOSANAGAR, AT PRESENT ADDRESS BALRAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NIREEKSHA D.J. FOR SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADV. FOR R2 TO R4 AND ALSO FOR R1 (A-C); SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.10.2017 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AT SAGAR IN EX. NO. 152/2006 AT ANNEX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY REMAND THE MATTER FOR CLOSING THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS AS "DECREE SATISFIED". THE MEMO OF CALCULATIONS MENTIONED AT ANNEX-A IS PRODUCED AT ANNEX- J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited – beneficiary of the acquisition challenging the order dated 03.10.2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, in Execution Case No.152/2006. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26030 WP No. 56058 of 2017 2. Sri. Ajay J.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents are the land losers/ claimants they filed execution petitions seeking to execute the award passed by the Reference Court. The said execution proceedings were closed on 17.03.2012 recording that the award of the Reference Court has been satisfied. It is further submitted that the respondents filed an application to recall the order of closure of the execution proceedings which was allowed by the Execution Court on 03.01.2017 and the execution proceedings were restored. 3. It is submitted that after restoring the execution proceedings, the respondents - Decree Holders filed a memo of calculation on 07.03.2017 and the matter was adjourned to 17.03.2017, to enable the petitioner to file the memo of calculation. However, the Executing Court on 17.03.2017 recorded the finding that, despite being given the opportunity, the Judgment Debtor have failed to file their memo of calculation. Hence, posted the matter for orders and the impugned order came to be passed. 4. It is also submitted that this petition is filed primarily contending that the date of possession calculated in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26030 WP No. 56058 of 2017 the memo of calculation by the respondent is wrong. Secondly, the Executing Court has not provided an opportunity to file a memo of calculation to the Judgment Debtor - Beneficiary and straightway it has accepted the memo of calculation filed by the respondents at J-Series and directed to pay additional sum as ordered in the impugned order dated 03.10.2017. It is also contended that, as per the memo of calculation of the petitioner, the petitioner had already satisfied the award in LAC.No.15/1991 and in fact they have paid excess amount and if opportunity is provided to the petitioner, they would demonstrate the same before the Execution Court. Hence, he seeks to remand the matter back to the Execution Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Executing Court has committed grave error in calculating the interest from 27.05.1987 to 18.09.2001 which runs contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v/s Union of India1. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimants or that of the matter any land losers is entitled to claim interest on the solatium from 19.09.2001 onwards and not prior to the 1 2006 (8) SCC 437 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26030 WP No. 56058 of 2017 said date. It is also submitted that the impugned order is passed without considering the aspects of TDS, as the petitioner had paid the TDS, which is required to be deducted from the amount of calculation claimed by the respondents. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition and remand the matter back to the Executing Court. 6. Per-contra, Smt.Nireeksha D.J., learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.5 supports the impugned order of the Execution Court and submits that the Executing Court has taken note of all the aspects and passed the detailed order directing the petitioner to make good the difference amount as referred to in the impugned order. It is submitted that the Executing Court has considered the aspects of interest required to be calculated from the date of taking possession i.e. from 27.05.1987 and by assigning detailed reasons has directed the petitioner to pay the differential amount. Hence seeks to dismiss the petition. 7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents, learned Additional Government Advocate and meticulously perused the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26030 WP No. 56058 of 2017 material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 8. The Executing Court after recalling the order dated 17.03.2012, restored the Execution Case No.152/2006 on 03.01.2017. Thereafter, the records indicate that the respondents have filed a memo of calculation which are produced as Annexure-J to J4. The order sheet of the Executing Court indicates that the Executing Court had adjourned the matter to 17.03.2017 to enable the petitioner to file the memo of calculation. The order sheet dated 17.03.2017 indicates that despite granting sufficient opportunity to the Judgment Debtors they have failed to file their memo of calculation and in view of the same, the Executing Court proceeded to pass the impugned order. The perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Executing Court has accepted the memo of calculation filed by the respondents at Annexure-J to J4 and directed the petitioner to pay the difference amount referred to in the operative portion of the impugned order dated 03.10.2017. 9. In my considered view, the Executing Court has committed a grave error in ignoring certain aspects and also not providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26030 WP No. 56058 of 2017 contention of the petitioner that the petitioner are not entitled to pay any interest on the solatium amount from 27.05.1987 to 19.09.2001 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh referred supra is required to be considered by the Executing Court after providing sufficient opportunity to the parties to the proceedings. Further, the petitioner has raised specific contention in the petition that the petitioner has paid TDS amount on the determined compensation which is required to be deducted from the final calculation. The said aspect is also required to be looked into by the Executing Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made it clear that the dispute insofar as the date of taking possession of the land in question is not pressed and for all the purposes taking of possession of the land of the respondents is to be considered as 27.05.1987. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order dated 03.10.2017 passed in Execution Case No.152/2006 by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26030 WP No. 56058 of 2017 Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, is set-aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the Executing Court to reconsider the case afresh after providing both the parties an opportunity to file their memo of calculation and dispose of the same in accordance with law. iv. The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted back to the Executing Court along with the accrued interest and the Executing Court is directed to redeposit the same in any Nationalized Bank, till the execution proceedings are adjudicated. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29