Manjunath Tai Mahadevi Bhandari vs The Assistant Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 343 Kant

                            -1-




                                     CRP No. 1064 of 2013




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
                          BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
     CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1064 OF 2013 (-)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH TAI MAHADEVI BHANDARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
SATYANARANAYAN S/O. MANJUNATH BHANDARI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SALKOD, TQ:HONAVAR,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R G HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
1.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     KUMATA SUB DIVISION, KUMATA.
2.   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD,
     KARWAR.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.H.PATIL, AGA)
       THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2013 PASSED IN EX.CASE
NO.17/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.),
HONAVAR, THE EXECUTION PETITION IS CLOSED.


       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-




                                           CRP No. 1064 of 2013


                           ORDER

1. Present petition is by the decree holder,

aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.2013 passed in

Execution Case No.17/2006, on the file of the Civil Judge

(Sr.Dn.), Honavar.

2. By the said order, the Executing Court while

declining to accept the memo of calculation submitted by

the petitioner/decree holder accepted the calculation

submitted by respondent No.2/judgment debtor 2-the

Executive Engineer, on the premise that; in the calculation

memo submitted by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.17,340/-,

which was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer

had been included, while in the memo of calculation

submitted by judgment debtor 1, the said amount had not

been included. Further that the petitioner had calculated

interest on compound basis which according to the

Executing Court was not permissible.

3. In response to the above, the learned counsel

for the petitioner Sri.R.G.Hegde submitted that an amount

CRP No. 1064 of 2013

of Rs.17,000/- which was included in their memo of

calculation is still lying in deposit before the Executing

Court and the same has not been handed over/received by

the petitioner. It is in this circumstance the said amount

was included in the memo of calculation.

4. As regards the interest is concerned, the

learned counsel submitted that there has been no

compound interest calculated but the interest amount

calculated is only on the outstanding amount. Therefore he

submits that there is irregularity in the order passed by

the Executing Court without looking into these aspects of

the matter.

5. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that in the

calculation submitted by the Judgment Debtor No.2- the

Executive Engineer, he has taken into consideration the

fact that the amount of Rs.17,340/- which was awarded by

the SLAO was lying in fixed deposit and the same has

been therefore excluded from calculation and the interest

amount is calculated by excluding the said amount.

CRP No. 1064 of 2013

Perhaps, this method of calculation adopted by the

petitioner and judgment debtor 2 has lead difference in

their amount.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned AGA fairly submits that the matter may be

remitted for reconciliation and fresh calculation of the

amount, taking into consideration the amount awarded by

the SLAO, which is now admittedly kept in fixed deposit

and by calculating interest as provided under the

provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.

7. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, more

particularly of the fact that the decree holder/petitioner

included the amount of Rs.17,340/- awarded by the SLAO

in his calculation on the premise that the amount has not

been received by him and judgment debtor 2 excluding

the said amount on the premise of the said amount is

lying in recurring deposit and consequent variations in the

interest, the same requires to be reconciled by taking into

consideration the said amount.

CRP No. 1064 of 2013

8. In that view of the matter, petition is allowed

and the order impugned is set aside. The matter is

remitted to the Executing Court. The decree holder and

judgment debtors shall reconcile the amount taking into

consideration the amount of Rs.17,340/-, which is

admittedly kept in recurring deposit and interest applicable

as provided under law be calculated accordingly.

9. It is further submitted that purported excess

amount paid to the petitioner has been deposited by the

petitioner before the Executing Court. After fresh

calculation and reconciliation of amount, if it is found that

petitioner is entitled for the amount claimed by him, the

same may be released and if the amount is found to be

paid in excess, the same shall be repaid to the judgment

debtors.

10. In view of the disposal of main petition, pending

IAs. do no survive for consideration.

s

sd JUDGE