( 2026:HHC:1076 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 22 of 2020 Decided on: 05.01.2026 ____________________________________________________ Durga Mahila Mandal Society ……….. petitioner Versus Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Paras Dhaulta, Advocate For the respondents : Respondent No.1 is already ex parte. : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.2. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-7. 2. The dispute in the case at hand lies in a narrow compass. The amount paid to the present petitioner/decree holder has been determined to be Rs.45,01,953/- and the actual amount payable to the petitioner/decree holder has been held to be Rs.32,93,991/-. Hence, the Executing Court has ordered 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 refund of Rs.12,07,962/- to be made by the present petitioner/decree holder to the judgment debtors. 3. The detailed calculation done by the Executing Court is mentioned in paragraph 21 of the impugned order. The sole entry which is being disputed by the present petitioner/decree holder is mentioned at Serial No. 18, wherein it has been reflected that on 09.09.2004, a sum of Rs.2,62,500/- has been paid to KDIC Bank, Bombay, by the present respondents/judgment debtors. It is asserted by the petitioner/decree holder that no such payment has been made to KDIC Bank on 09.09.2004 by the respondents/judgment debtors. The same, it is categorically submitted, has been paid by the petitioner/decree holder to KDIC Bank, Bombay. 4. In order to substantiate the making of payment of Rs.2,62,500/- to KDIC Bank, Bombay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/judgment debtors has drawn the attention of this Court to receipt placed on record of the Executing Court at page No. 108 of the paper book. Suffice it to state that the award in the case at hand was made on 26.05.2004. The award was for a sum of Rs.10,02,307/-. From the receipt placed on record to which the attention of this Court has been invited by learned counsel for the respondents/judgment debtors, it is evident that a sum of Rs.10,02,307/- in pursuance to award dated 26.05.2004 was paid to the petitioner/decree holder. In the said 3 receipt, attention is invited to the bottom thereof, wherein the loan amount payable to KDIC Bank, Bombay, has been mentioned as Rs.2,62,500/-. Adjacent to the same, on the extreme left corner of the receipt, signatures of one Bhag Sain Numberdar has been appended. A perusal of the receipt, to which attention of this Court has been invited, necessarily reflects that only a sum of Rs.10,02,307/-, which is recorded both in figures and words, is stated to have been paid to the present petitioner/decree holder. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/decree holder has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter placed on record before the Executing Court at page No. 98 of the paper book. The said letter has been written by the Secretary of the petitioner/decree holder and is addressed to the Principal Officer, Khadi Gram Village Industries Commission, Bombay. In the same, it has been mentioned that a sum of Rs.2,62,500/- has been received as a loan from KDIC Bank, Bombay, and for discharge of the same, Bank Draft bearing No. 055166 dated 14.09.2004 is being forwarded for appropriate necessary action. Postal receipt has also been placed on record. 6. In this context, attention of this Court has been invited to page No. 102 of the paper book of the Executing Court, wherein receipt of payment of Draft bearing No. 055166 dated 14.09.2004 for a sum of Rs.2,62,500/- has been acknowledged. Photocopy of the bank draft in question has been placed at page 4 No. 101 of the paper book. From the aforesaid, it is evident that a sum of Rs.2,62,500/- alleged to have been paid by the respondents/judgment debtors is not correct. Hence, the impugned judgment, to the extent it takes into account payment of Rs.2,62,500/- as having been paid by the present respondents/judgment debtors, is held to be incorrect. 7. As a consequence whereof, the amount due and payable to the decree holder, if any, be re-worked after deducting the payment of Rs. 2,62,500/-, wrongly stated to have been paid on 09.09.2004 by the respondents/judgment debtors. Necessary calculations in this respect be made by the respondents/judgment debtors within a period of eight weeks from today. If any amount is found to be due and payable to the petitioner/decree holder in the case at hand, then the payment be paid within four weeks thereafter. However, if any amount is to be recovered, then the necessary amount be recovered from the petitioner/decree holder within four weeks from such determination. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with all pending applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 05th January, 2026 Tarun