- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51053 CRP No. 172 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 172 OF 2023 (EX) BETWEEN: RAJASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT URKEHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TQ, TUMKUR DIST. - 572 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (PIU), BTM II STAGE, (NH 48), BENGALURU - 560 076. NOW THE OFFICE HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-HASSAN NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NO.44/1, A1, 1ST MAIN, KUVEMPU ROAD, INDRANAGAR, SATYAMANGALA LAYOUT, HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (NELAMANGALA -HASSAN DIVISION) KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DIST. - 572 130. 3. THE TECHNICAL MANAGER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, BENGALURU - 560 073. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51053 CRP No. 172 of 2023 NOW THE OFFICE HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-HASSAN NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA NO.44/1, A1, 1ST MAIN, KUVEMPU ROAD, INDRANAGAR, SATYAMANGALA LAYOUT, HASSAN - 573 201. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR, (NH 48), MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHILPA GHANSHYAMBHAI SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R4) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2023 PASSED IN EX.No.158/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, REJECTING THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 11(2) OF CPC R/W 36 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Narayana Bhat M., learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Smt.Shilpa Ghanashyambhai Shah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Bhojegowda T. Koller, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.4. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51053 CRP No. 172 of 2023 2. Claimant is the revision petitioner who has filed an execution case in Ex.No.158/2021 seeking recovery of the enhanced award amount passed in Arbitration Suit No.3/2019. 3. Learned Judge in the Executing Court passed an order on 18.01.2023 and rejected the execution petition. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: Land of the claimant came to be executed by the National Highway Authority and an award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter ‘LAO’ for short). 5. Being aggrieved by the same, taking note of the arbitration clause, the matter was arbitrated and learned Arbitrator enhanced the amount to Rs.35,429/- as against the award passed by the learned LAO. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51053 CRP No. 172 of 2023 6. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal came to be filed by the claimant before the District Court, Tumkur in A.S.No.3/2019. 7. Learned District Judge after hearing the parties, set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator in A.S.No.3/2019. 8. The order of the learned District Judge did not further mention as to whether re-arbitration should be conducted or not as per the existing rules and the case law then. 9. As a result, the enhancement made by the arbitrator stands set aside and the matter is now to be re- arbitrated or not is left to the parties. 10. No application is admittedly filed by the revision petitioner seeking to re-arbitrate the matter. 11. When the matter stood thus, taking note of the fact that the award passed by the arbitrator is set aside in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51053 CRP No. 172 of 2023 A.S.No.3/2019, learned Judge in the Executing Court has closed the execution petition in Ex.No.158/2021. 12. The validity of the same is called in question in this revision petition. 13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contented that the revision petitioner is a rustic person who did not know what is the order passed by the learned District Judge and under the impression that the award is made in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and odd, filed the execution petition and therefore, dismissal of the execution petition is incorrect. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would contend that when the award passed by the arbitrator is set aside by the learned District Judge being the Appellate Authority, the closure of the execution petition is just and proper. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51053 CRP No. 172 of 2023 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, since the award passed by the arbitrator is set aside by the Appellate Authority namely the learned District Judge, Tumkur in A.S.No.3/2019, closure of the execution petition is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. 17. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42