- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.388 OF 2024 (EX) BETWEEN: SRI GURUMURTHY, S/O DODMANE KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O GUDDEKOWTHI, MARASA VILLAGE, SAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN 570137 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SAMEER S N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MINICIPAL COUNCIL, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577401 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND L A O SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2023 PASSED IN EX No.24/2018 ON THE FILE OF C/C ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR, THE PETITION IS CLOSED AS FULLY SATISFIED. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER The present revision petition is filed by the decree holder in Execution Case No.24/2018, whereby not only execution petition came to be closed, but also the alleged excess amount that was paid by the judgment debtor has ordered to be returned with interest at 15% per annum after the period of three months. 2. Operative portion of the Order of the Execution Court reads as under: “The petition is closed as fully satisfied. The DHR is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,66,500-00 i.e, excess received by him from the JDRs to the JDR No.2 within span of 3 months from today. In case of default interest @ 15% per annum will payable on the amount from the date of this order till its realization. It is needless to say that in case of default, the JDRS are at liberty to file the E.P for the recovery of the same, if necessary.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. Pursuant to the award passed in LAC case No.5/2013, decree holder filed an execution petition for recovery of sum of Rs.13,57,714/- along with future interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 4. There was serious dispute as to the memo of calculation filed by the decree holder with regard to the execution claim. Therefore, both the parties were directed to file respective memo of calculations. 5. As such, both decree holder as well as judgment debtor have filed memo of calculations. Later on since there was difference in the memo of collections, Court took the responsibility of calculating the exact amount recoverable by the decree holder pursuant to the award passed in LAC No.5/2013. Court calculated the amount in paragraph 4(a) to 4(l) in Execution case No.24/2018, taking note of the amounts paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder as against the execution claim. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 6. For ready reference, paragraphs 4 (a) to (l) in Execution Case No.24/2018 are called out hereunder: “a) As per the award passed in LAC 5/2013, the DHR is entitled for Rs.3,00,564-00 as market value for the acquired land. Admittedly, L.A.O had paid Rs.1,13,843-00 to the D.H.R. When the said amount is deducted from Rs.3,00,564-00, the enhanced amount will come to Rs.1,86,721-00. b) Admittedly, the DHR is entitled for 30% solatium under section 23(2) of L.A.Act as per Award on the enhanced amount. Hence, the DHR is entitled for solatium of Rs.56,016-00. Further the DHR is entitled for 12% Additional benefit from 29.03.2009 to 3.5.2011 on enhanced amount which comes to Rs.46,961-00. When the aforesaid three amounts are added, it comes to Rs.2,89,698-00. c) The DHR is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount for one year, which comes to Rs.26,072-00. Further the DHR is entitled for 15% of interest of Rs.2,89,698-00 from 29.3.2010 to filing of the present petition i.e., 23.08.2018 (3068 days) which comes to Rs.3,65,257-00. d) Further the DHR is entitled for Crop damages of Rs.2,76,000-00 and he is also entitled for interest on the said Crop damages @ 15% per annum from 10.07.2017 to 23.08.2018, which comes to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 Rs.46,390-00. When the aforesaid amounts are totaled it comes to Rs.10,03,417-00 i.e., Rs.2,89,698-00 + Rs.26,072-00 + Rs.3,65,25- 00 + Rs.27,600-00 + Rs.46,390). e) On 23.08.2018 Rs.2,00,000-00 has been paid to the DHR, when the said amount is deducted from Rs.10,03,417-00, the balance amount payable comes to Rs.8,03,417-00. f) Next on 15.09.2018 Rs.1,00,000-00 was paid. So 15% interest calculated from 24.08.2018 to 15.09.2018 on Rs.2,89,698-00 and crop damage amount of Rs.2,76,000-00 which comes to Rs.5114-00 i.e., Rs.2619+ Rs.2495-00. Thus, the total outstanding amount payable on 15.09.2018 was Rs.8,08,531-00., out of which Rs.1,00,000-00 paid on 15.09.2018 is deducted, the balance amount payable comes to Rs.7,08,531-00. g) Next payment was made on 16.3.2019. So 15% interest calculated on Rs.2,89,698-00. So 15% interest calculated from 24.08.2018 to 15.09.2018 on Rs.2,89,698-00 and crop damage amount of Rs.2,76,000-00 which comes to Rs.42078-00 i.e., Rs.21548-00 + Rs.20530-00. Thus, the total outstanding amount is Rs.7,50,609-00 (Rs.7,08,531-00 + Rs.42078-00), out of which the above said amount of Rs.1,00,000-00 is deducted, the balance payable comes to Rs.6,50,609-00. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 h) Next payment was made on 14.08.2019. So 15% interest calculated on Rs.2,89,698-00. So 15% interest calculated from 24.08.2018 to 15.09.2018 on Rs.2,89,698-00 and crop damage amount of Rs.2,76,000-00 which comes to Rs.17,585-00 i.e., Rs.17858-00 + Rs.17013-00. Thus, the total outstanding amount is Rs.6,85,480-00 (Rs.6,50,609-00 + Rs.17,585-00), out of which the above said amount of Rs.2,00,000-00 is deducted, the balance payable comes to Rs.4,85,480-00. i) Next payment was made on 11.02.2020. As the balance amount payable is less than the aggregate of Rs.2,89,698-00 + Rs.270,000- 00 (Crop damages), the interest will be calculated on the balance amount of Rs.4,85,480-00 from 15.08.2019 to 11.02.2020 which comes to Rs.53,912-00. Thus, the total outstanding amount is Rs.5,21,392-00 (Rs.4,85,480-00 + Rs.53,912- 00), out of which the above said amount of Rs.2,00,000-00 is deducted, the balance payable comes to Rs.3,21,392-00. j) Next payment was made on 13.08.2020 So 15% interest calculated on Rs.3,21,392-00, which comes to Rs.24,170-00. Thus, the total outstanding amount is Rs.3,45,562-00 (Rs.3,21,392-00+ Rs.24,170-00), out of which the above said amount of Rs.2,00,000- 00 is deducted, the balance payable comes to Rs.1,45,562-00. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 k) Next payment was made on 30.12.2020. So 15% interest calculated on Rs.1,45,562-00, which comes to Rs.8,255-00. Thus, the total outstanding amount is Rs.1,53,817-00 (Rs.1,45,562-00+ Rs.8,255-00), out of which the above said amount of Rs.2,00,000-00 is deducted, the excess amount paid comes to Rs.46,182-00. l) On 02.03.2021 and 9.08.2021 excess payment of Rs.2,00,000-00, Rs.3,25,184-00 was made to the DHR. Thus in total the excess payment made comes Rs.5,71,366-00 i.e., Rs.46,182-00 + Rs.2,00,000-00 + Rs.3,25,184-00.” 7. After so calculating the amount, the learned trial Judge in the execution proceedings, also noted that decree holder would be entitled to expenses towards the costs awarded in the land acquisition case proceedings, cost of copies etc., and then summed it up to Rs.4,866/- towards the costs. 8. Out of the excess amount that has been paid by the judgment debtor, said sum of Rs.4,866/- was deducted and a sum of Rs.5,66,500/- is ordered to be repaid by the decree holder to the judgment debtor within three months from the date of order, failing which the decree holder is also directed to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum till recovery. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 9. Validity of the said order is called in question in the present revision petition by the decree holder on following grounds:  The petitioner has filed the memo of calculation. The Hon'ble court's office had made its own calculation. But the Hon'ble Senior Civil judge and JMFC, Sagara had committed error in making his own calculation while passing the impugned orders on memo of calculation. The Hon'ble Court has deducting Rs.1,13,843/- paid by the LAO to the DHR from Rs.3,00,564/- thereby deriving Rs.186,721-00 which is incorrect.  The correct calculation should have been deducting Rs.1,13,843 from the amounts, Rs.3,00,564 90,169(Additional solatium at 30% u/s 23(2) of L.A. Act + Rs.1,00,013/- (12% additional benefit from 29- 03-2009 to 04-05-2011 on enhanced amount) - Rs.1,13,843/- Rs.3,76,903/-.  Instead of adding 30% additional solatium and additional benefit to the entire sum of Rs.3,76,903/= the learned judge has added 30% additional solatium and additional benefit to Rs.186,721/= thereby depriving 30% additional solatium and 12% additional benefit to Rs.1,13,843/=(the compensation paid by the LAO) Hence, the order on memo of calculation is liable to be set aside.  The impugned order directing the petitioner to Pay amount of Rs.5,66,500/- to the respondents is also - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 liable to be quashed as the order is based on incorrect calculation.  The petitioner has filed W.P.no.4514/2024 for which the office objection was raised regarding maintainability. Hence, the writ petition No.4514/2024 was withdrawn with liberty to filed revision petition. Apart from this writ petition the petitioner has not filed any other petition before this hon'ble court or any other court on the same cause of action, 10. Sri Sameer S.N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision question vehemently contented that the learned trial Judge committed an error in calculating the award amount and correct calculation is made by the decree holder in ground Nos.8, 9 and 10 referred to supra. 11. Therefore, the order of the learned trial Judge is per se incorrect and sought for admitting the revision for further consideration. 12. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Prithvi wodeyar, appearing on behalf of respondent supports the impugned order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, the calculations filed by the parties in LAC No.5/2013 are referred to by the learned Judge and since they were not tallying with each other, the Court took the responsibility of calculating the amount payable to the decree holder by the judgment debtor in the aforesaid paragraph Nos.4 (a) to 4 (l) as referred to supra in detail item wise as well as the payment made for judgment debtor on different dates. 15. As could be seen from the aforesaid paragraphs, the learned trial Judge has taken pains not only to calculate the amount payable to the decree holder, but also the different dates of payment made by the judgment debtor to the decree holder and the interest that is payable on the remaining amount meticulously. 16. Since the claim of the decree holder is deduced in an objective manner by the learned trial Judge in the execution case which is in conformity with the award passed in LAC - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49698 CRP No. 388 of 2024 No.5/2013, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with impugned order. 17. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR