- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:58 CRP No. 100083 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100083 OF 2023 BETWEEN: RAMA THOKA GOUDA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS) 1.A SRI. MUKUND S/O RAMA GUDA AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 1.B SRI. KRISHNA S/O RAMA GOUDA AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 1.C SMT. KAMI D/O RAMA GOUDA AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 1.D SMT. JEEVI D/O RAMA GOUDA AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 1.E SMT. NINGI D/O RAMA GOUDA AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 1.F SUME D/O RAMA GOUDA AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., SIDDA THOKA GOUDA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS) 2.A SMT. NAGI SIDDHA GOUDA AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 2.B TAMMANI S/O SIDDU GOUDA AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2026.01.08 12:44:11 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:58 CRP No. 100083 of 2023 2.C SMT. UMA SIDDA GOUDA AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 2.D SMT. SUMITRA SIDDA GOUDA AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 2.E HONNU D/O SIDDA GOUDA AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 2.F JANU S/O SIDDA GOUDA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS) 2.F(I) SMT. SUREKHA JANU GOUDA AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 2.F(II) SHRINIVASA JANU GOUDA AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 2.F(III) KAMAKSHI JANU GOUDA AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 2.F(IV) SMT. NAGAVENI JANU GOUDA AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., SRI GOVINDA THOKA GOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 3.A SMT. HEDDI GOVINDA GOUDA AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 3.B SRI YANKU GOVINDA GOUDA AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 3.C PERU GOVINDA GOUDA AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 3.D SMT. GOURI GOVINDA GOUDA AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., 3.E SMT. REVATI GOVINDA GOUDA AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:58 CRP No. 100083 of 2023 (ALL ARE R/O BALERASHI, AMADALLI VILLAGE, KARWAR TALUK) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ S. BYAKOD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PROJECT SEA BIRD NAVAL BASE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KARWAR. 2. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA AND GOA CIRCLE, T/56, ASSYE LINE. KKAMARAJ ROAD, BENGALORE-560042. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC 1908., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2021 PASSED IN EX.PET.NO.100/2020 BY THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KARWAR AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE EXECUTING COURT TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH THE EXECUTION PETITION AS PER LAW, BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:58 CRP No. 100083 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question the order passed by the executing Court in Execution Petition No.100/2020, whereby the execution petition came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and on the erroneous premise that no balance amount was payable to the petitioners. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the lands belonging to the petitioners situated at Kodar Village, Karwar Taluka, were acquired for the Naval Base Project. A general award was passed. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which came to be registered as LAC No.269/1994 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karwar. The Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed the market value at ₹11,500/- per gunta with all statutory benefits. The appeal preferred by the respondent authorities against the said judgment and award was dismissed by this Court, thereby confirming the award. 3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners filed Execution Petition No.263/2007 claiming compensation of ₹59,84,000/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:58 CRP No. 100083 of 2023 During the execution proceedings, the respondent authorities deposited a sum of ₹11,72,143/-, being 25% of the award amount, and a further sum of ₹36,28,505/-, which amounts were received by the petitioners. The execution petition was closed at that stage, reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek recovery of the balance amount, if any. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Execution Petition No.100/2020 seeking recovery of the balance amount of ₹14,61,204/- along with interest, aggregating to ₹40,33,519/-. However, the executing Court, without examining the computation of the balance payable and without considering the statutory benefits flowing from the confirmed award, dismissed the execution petition solely on the ground of delay and further held that no amount was payable to the petitioners. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the approach adopted by the executing Court is manifestly erroneous and contrary to settled principles of law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:58 CRP No. 100083 of 2023 Mere lapse of time in filing the execution petition could not have been a ground to dismiss the same when the decree admittedly remained unsatisfied. It is well settled that an execution petition cannot be rejected on the ground of delay alone, so long as it is within the period of limitation and the decretal amount has not been fully paid. 7. Further, the finding of the executing Court that no balance amount is payable is unsupported by any computation or material on record. The executing Court failed to take into consideration the statutory interest and other benefits payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and thereby committed a grave jurisdictional error. 8. It is also observed that the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo seeking disposal of the petition contending that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CRP No.100023/2022 and connected cases. On perusal of the said judgment and having regard to the similarity of facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the present petition is fully covered by the aforesaid decision. The memo is taken on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:58 CRP No. 100083 of 2023 9. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the disposal of the petition in terms of CRP N.100023/2022. 10. In view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be disposed of. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. (ii) The impugned order dated 30.03.2021 passed in Execution Petition No.100/2020 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karwar, is hereby set aside. (iii) Execution Petition No.100/2020 is restored to the file of the executing Court. (iv) The executing Court is directed to dispose of the execution petition on merits, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both parties within a period of eight months from the date of commencing the proceedings. (v) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to file a memo of calculation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:58 CRP No. 100083 of 2023 (vi) The parties are directed to appear before the executing Court on 02.02.2026 without further notice. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE MBS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 33