Karnataka High Court
Mr. Derrick D'Sa vs The Karnataka Housing Board on 25 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.51005/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. DERRICK D'SA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. MRS. HARRIET D'SA
W/O LATE DERRICK D'SA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
by RUPA V
Location: High 2. VINOD D'SA
Court of S/O LATE DERRICK D'SA
karnataka AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
3. MRS. MARITA D'SA
D/O LATE DERRICK D'SA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
4. ERIC D'SA
S/O LATE DOROTHY D'SA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.14, SARASBAUG
DEONAR, MUMBAI-400088.
5. COL. FEDRICK D'SA
S/O LATE DOROTHY D'SA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
6. MRS. MABELLE JESTINA D'SA
W/O LATE JOSEPH J.P. D'SA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
7. MRS. TABITHA SANIA D'SA
D/O LATE JOSEPH J.P. D'SA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
8. MRS. JOVITHA SHAINA D'SA
D/O LATE JOSEPH J.P. D'SA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
9. MRS. SAMANTHA JOELLE D'SA
D/O LATE JOSEPH J.P. D'SA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 9 ARE
R/AT 42B, 'DOTS DREAM'
CUNNINGHAM ROAD CROSS
BENGALURU-560052.
PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE
REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER THE
PETITIONER HEREIN AND
PETITIONERS 7 TO 9 ARE
REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
THE SIX PETITIONER HEREIN.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAYARAMA BHATT S, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVANA
BENGALURU-560009
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVANA
BENGALURU-560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1 & R2)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
13.09.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED II ADDITIONAL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU IN EX.CASE
NO.25/2011 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-K. ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE COURT OF LEARNED II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU TO
CONSIDER THE MEMO OF CALCULATIONS FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
MADE BY THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURES-J1 AND J2 & ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
23.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
13.09.2019 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Mangalore, in Ex.Case No.25/2011.
2. Heard.
3. Sri.S.Jayarama Bhatt S., learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the Execution Court committed a grave
error in accepting the memo of calculation filed by the
respondents-judgment debtors. It is submitted that the
respondents have not made payment after passing of the
award by the Land Acquisition Officer and only on 03.10.2002
Rs.50,00,000/- was paid, later on 19.09.2003 Rs.69,34,976/-
was paid and further on 30.07.2004 Rs.15,72,303/- was paid
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
which was appropriated towards the interest. The memo of
calculation was filed before the Execution Court, which has
been extracted under the impugned order at page 8. However,
the Trial Court rejected the said memo of calculation filed by
the petitioners-decree holders by ignoring the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUNDER Vs. UNION
OF INDIA1. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered the entitlement of interest on the
solatium amount and held that splitting of compensation into
different components for the purpose of payment of interest
under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') is not contemplated. It is also
submitted that the possession of the land was taken on
21.06.2002 and as per the enhanced compensation by this
Court in MFA No.10128/2010 and connected matter, the
market value for 6 acres 88 cents would be Rs.1,74,15,000/-,
solatium at 30% would be Rs.52,24,500/-, additional market
value as per Section 23(1)(A) of the Act from 22.04.1999 up to
the date of award i.e. 21.06.2001 would be Rs.45,27,900/- and
total decreetal amount would be Rs.2,71,67,400/-. However,
1
(2001) 7 SCC 211
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
the Trial Court ignoring the said facts incorrectly accepted the
memo of calculation filed by the judgment debtors. It is
contended that the judgment debtors, in their memo of
calculation have splitted the component of market value and
calculated the interest which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks
to set aside the impugned order by remanding the matter back
to the Execution Court to re-calculate the compensation and
thereafter, direct the judgment debtors to pay the same.
4. Per contra, Sri.Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned Senior
counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned
order of the Trial Court and submits that this Court on earlier
three occasions remanded the matter back to the Execution
Court at the instance of the respondents and directed the
Execution Court to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of GURPREET SINGH Vs. UNION
OF INDIA2. It is submitted that after the remand, the
Execution Court, considering the memo of calculation filed by
the judgment debtors came to the conclusion that the same is
in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
2
(2006) 8 SCC 457
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
Court in the case of GURPREET SINGH referred supra and
directed the judgment debtors to pay Rs.53,25,550/- which has
already been paid as this Court in a writ petition in
W.P.No.23080/2017 directed the judgment debtors to deposit
Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the same was deposited which is
appropriated towards the amount required to be paid to the
petitioners and the balance amount was withdrawn. It is
further submitted that the decree holders cannot convert the
writ proceedings into the Appellate Court proceedings and ask
this Court to re-calculate as per their memo of calculation,
which is impermissible. The jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to ascertain
the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order. It is also
submitted that the Execution Court, on verification of the
records, award of the Land Acquisition Officer, judgment of the
Reference Court, order of this Court in appeal, considered both
the memos of calculation by applying the rule of appropriation
as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
GURPREET SINGH, referred supra and directed the
respondents-judgment debtors to deposit the due amount as
per the memo of calculation filed by them. It is contended that
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
the petitioners-decree holders are claiming interest on the
amounts which was already paid by the judgment debtors on
different occasions, which is impermissible. Hence, no
interference is called for. It is further contended that this
Court, on an earlier occasion while remanding, directed the
Execution Court to consider the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of GURPREET SINGH, referred
supra. Hence, the question of considering the observations
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUNDER
referred supra would not arise. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the
writ petition with exemplary costs.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
and 2 and perused the material available on record. I have
given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced
on both the sides.
6. The pleading and material on record indicate that
the petitioners are the owners of land measuring 5 acres 12
cents in Sy.No.168/5 and measuring 1 acre 76 cents in
Sy.No.169/1 situated at Padavu Village, Gurupura Hobli,
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
Mangalore Taluk, D.K. District. The said land was acquired for
the benefit of the respondent No.1-Karnataka Housing Board
vide preliminary notification dated 06.03.1999 and final
notification dated 01.06.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer
passed the award by determining the market value of the land
in question at Rs.11,12,205/- per acre along with solatium,
additional market value and the statutory interest. The
Reference Court after deducting the development charges,
enhanced the market value at Rs.16,87,500/- per acre. The
petitioners as well as the respondents filed appeal before this
Court. The appeal in M.F.A.No.25/2011 filed by the
respondents came to be dismissed and the appeal of the
petitioners in M.F.A.No.10128/2010 was allowed by re-
determining the market value at Rs.25,31,250/- per acre.
7. The petitioners filed an execution petition in
Ex.P.No.25/2011. The Execution Court passed orders dated
23.07.2016 and 28.09.2016 which was challenged by the
respondents in W.P.No.59183/2016 c/w W.P.No.60633/2016
and this Court, vide order dated 13.01.2017 allowed the said
writ petition and the impugned orders were set aside. The
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
records also indicate that the Execution Court passed an order
dated 22.04.2017 which was also assailed by the respondents
in W.P.No.23080/2017 which came to be allowed on
16.08.2018 by setting aside the impugned order and directed
the Execution Court to pass fresh order strictly in accordance
with the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of GURPREET SINGH, referred supra. This
Court also recorded that the amount deposited by the
respondents pursuant to the interim order shall remain with
this Court and separate order may be passed later on, after the
fresh orders are passed by the Execution Court. The
respondents once again knocked the doors of this Court in
W.P.No.54265/2018 by challenging the order dated 16.11.2018
passed in Ex.Case No.25/2011. This Court again vide order
dated 11.06.2019 allowed the writ petition by setting aside the
impugned order and issued a direction to follow the decision of
GURPREET SINGH case, referred supra. After remand by this
Court, the Execution Court once again passed the impugned
order.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
8. The petitioners-decree holders have filed a memo of
calculation dated 25.07.2019 which has been extracted by the
Execution Court in the impugned order at page 8. The balance
amount payable as on 23.07.2016 as calculated by the office of
the Execution Court is shown as Rs.1,52,52,536/- and after
deduction of Court cost and adding of interest on balance
payable, the decree holders claimed that they are entitled to an
amount of Rs.2,20,41,571/-. The Trial Court, taking note of
the said memo of calculation has rightly recorded the finding
that the balance amount shown by the decree holders in their
memo of calculation as per the office of the Execution Court is
already set aside by this Court in the aforereferred writ
petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners` has filed a memo
of calculation in this petition at Annexure-L. The decreetal
amount per acre shown in the memo of calculation as
Rs.25,31,250/- and the total decreetal amount shown as
Rs.1,74,15,000/- which is prima facie wrong. The decreetal
amount shown is the enhancement amount in the appeal filed
by the petitioners and the said amount cannot be termed as
decreetal amount for the purpose of calculation as it is without
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
deducting the payments made by the respondents-judgment
debtors.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
GURPREET SINGH, referred supra at paragraphs 28 and 36
held as under:
"28. Going by this principle and for the moment
keeping out the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, it
appears to us that on payment or deposit of the amount
awarded by the Collector in terms of Section 11 read with
Section 31 of the Act, the claimant cannot thereafter
claim any interest on that part of the compensation paid
to him or deposited for the payment to him once notice of
deposit is given to him. Thereafter, when the Reference
Court enhances the compensation with consequential
enhancement in solatium and interest under Section
23(1-A) of the Act and further awards interest on the
enhanced compensation in terms of Section 28 of the Act,
the claimant/decree-holder can seek an appropriation of
the amounts deposited pursuant to that award-decree,
only towards the enhanced amount so awarded by the
Reference Court. While making the appropriation, he can
apply the amount deposited, first towards the satisfaction
of his claim towards interest on the enhanced amount,
the costs, if any, awarded and the balance towards the
land value, solatium and the payment under Section 23
(1-A) of the Act and if there is a shortfall, claim that part
of the compensation with interest thereon as provided in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
Section 28 of the Act and as covered by the award-
decree. Once the sum enhanced by the Reference Court,
along with the interest is deposited by the State, there
will be no occasion for the claimant/awardee to seek a
reopening of the amount awarded by the Collector,
substituted by the amount awarded by the Reference
Court and seek to have a reappropriation of the amount
towards what is due. Same would be the position in a
case where the amount awarded by the Reference Court,
including the interest is deposited, but the amount is
further enhanced in appeal by the High Court. Again, the
same principle would apply. The principle would continue
to apply when the Supreme Court awards further
enhancement in a further appeal to that Court. But if
after the award by the Reference Court, the amount is not
deposited by the State, interest would run on the
compensation in terms of Section 28 of the Act on that
amount as provided in Section 28. The same would be the
position regarding the enhancement given in appeal by
the High Court and in the enhancement given in appeal
by the Supreme Court. The mandate of Section 34 and
Section 28 that interest would run from the date the
Collector takes possession till the particular amount is
deposited as provided in those sections, ensures that the
claimant is recompensed adequately. Section 28 ensures
such recompense at each stage of enhancement of
compensation.
36. Can a claimant or decree-holder who has received
the entire amount awarded by the Reference Court or
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
who had notice of the deposit of the entire amount so
awarded, claim interest on the amount he has already
received merely because the appellate court has
enhanced the compensation and has made payable
additional compensation? We have already referred to
Order 21 and Order 24 of the Code to point out that such
a blanket reopening of the transaction is not warranted
even in respect of a money decree. Section 28 of the Act
indicates that the award of interest is confined to the
excess compensation awarded and it is to be paid from
the date of dispossession. This is in consonance with the
position that a fresh reappropriation is not contemplated
or warranted by the scheme of the Act. But if there is any
shortfall at any stage, the claimant or decree-holder can
seek to apply the rule of appropriation in respect of that
amount, first towards interest and costs and then towards
the principal, unless the decree otherwise directs."
10. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court clearly explains the method of calculating the
compensation amount and interest and in the cases involving
the determination of compensation, initially by the Land
Acquisition Officer, then by the Reference Court, the High Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has explained the principle
of rule of appropriation. If the said principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred above, is kept in mind
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
while considering the memo of calculation filed by the
respondents-judgment debtors, I am of the considered view
that the same is in consonance with the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. For easy reference, the memo of
calculation filed by the judgment debtors is extracted
hereinbelow:
"Memo of Calculations dated 01.08.2019 filed by
judgment debtor No.2
A. First stage of Settlement of Compensation in terms
of the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer:-
1) As per the Award dated 21.06.2001, the market
value of the land was fixed at Rs.11,12,205/- per acre
and total compensation was awarded as detailed
hereunder,
i. The market value of 6.88 acre : 76,51,970-00
ii. Solatium at 30% (S.23(2) : 22,95,591-00
iii. Addl. Market value at 12% on market
value)
From 22-4-1999 (date of 4(1) notice to
21-6-2011) (date of Award for 26
Months under S.23-1A) : 19,87,415-00
Total : : 1,19,34,976-00
2)
i. Interest on Rs.1,19,34,976/- at 9%
p.a. for 1 year from 21-06-2001 -
date of Award to 20-06-2002. : 10,74,148-00
ii. Interest on Rs. 1,19,34,976/- at 15%
p.a. from 21-06-2002 to 3-10-2002
(105 days) : 5,15,003-00
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
3) Total compensation & Interest : 1,35,24,127-00
4) Less-Amount paid on 3-10-2002 : 50,00,000-00
5) Balance due as on 3-10-2002 : 85,24,127-00
6) Interest on Rs.85,24,127/- at 15% p.a.
from 04-10-2002 to 19-09-2003
(350 days) : 12,26,073-00
7) Total Compensation & Interest : 97,50,200-00
8) Less-Amount paid on 19-9-2003 : 69,34,976-00
9) Balance due as on 19-9-2003 : 28,15,224-00
10) Interest on Rs.28,15,224/- at 15% p.a.
from 20-09-2003 to 30-7-2004
(314 days) : 3,63,280-00
11) Total Compensation & Interest : 31,78,504-00
12) Less-Amount paid on 30-07-2004 : 15,72,303-00
13) Balance due as on 30-4-2004 : 16,06,201-00
14) Interest on Rs.16,06,201/- at 15% p.a.
from 31-07-2004 to 16-11-2015 -
4123 days : 27,21,521-00
15) Thus dues of 1st stage as on 16-11-2015
a) Compensation amount due :16,06,201-00
b) Interest due : 27,21,521-00
TOTAL : 43,27,722-00
B. Second stage of Settlement of Compensation in
terms of the Decree passed by the Reference Court:-
1) As per the Decree passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge
(Senior Division) in LAC 7/2004 dated 26.08.2010, the
market value of the land was fixed at Rs.16,87,500/-
per acre and the enhanced market value comes to
Rs.5,75,295:00 per acre. The total additional
compensation amount payable is detailed hereunder,
i. Enhanced market value of 6.88 acres
(5,75,295/-x 6.88 acres) : 39,58,030-00
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
ii. Solatium at 30% (S.23(2) : 11,87,409-00
iii. Addl. Market value at 12% on the
Enhanced Value from 22-4-1999 (date of
4(1) notice) To 21-6-2001 (date of
Award for 26 months Under S.23-1A : 10,29,088-00
TOTAL : 61,74,527-00
iv. Interest on Rs.61,74,527:00/- at 9%
p.a. for one year from 21-6-2001 date
of award by LAO : 5,55,708-00
v. Interest on Rs.61,74,527:00/- at 15%
p.a. from 21-6-2002 to 12-4-2011-for
8 years 09 months 21 days
(8.82 years) : 81,68,900-00
Total interest due as on : 87,24,608-00
Less-Amount deposited on : 76,50,000-00
(12-4-2011)
vi. Interest due : 10,74,608-00
vii. Interest on Rs.61,74,527:00/-
at 15% p.a. from 13-04-2011
to 16-11-2015 for 4 years
218 days - i.e. 4.60 years : 42,60,424-00
viii. TOTAL INTEREST : 53,35,032-00
2) Total balance amount of 2nd stage as
on 16-11-2015
a) Compensation amount due: 61,74,527-00
b) Interest due : 53,35,032-
00
TOTAL : 1,15,09,559-00/
C. Third stage of Settlement of Compensation in terms
of the Final Judgment passed by the High Court:-
1) As per the judgment of the High Court in MFA
10128/2010 dated 12-11-2014 the Hon'ble High Court
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
fixed the market value of the land at Rs.25,31,250/- per
acre and the enhanced market value (excluding the
value fixed by the referring Court) comes to
Rs.8,43,750:00 per acre.
The total additional compensation amount payable is
detailed hereunder:
i. Enhanced market value of 6.88
acres (Rs.8,43,750/-x 6.88 acres) :
58,05,000-00
ii. Solatium at 30% (S.23(2) : 17,41,500-00
iii. Addl. Market value at 12%
on the enhanced Value from
22-4-1999 (date of 4(1) notice)
To 21-6-01 (date of Award for
26 months (S.23-1A : 15,09,300-00
TOTAL : 90,55,800-00
iv. Interest on the said amount
at 9% р.а. for one year from
21-6-2001 date of award by LAO : 8,15,022-00
v. Interest on the said amount
at 15% p.a. from 21-6-2002
to 16-11-2015 -for 13 years
4 months 26 days(13.42 years): 1,82,29,326-00
:1,90,44,348-00
2) Total balance amount of 3rd stage as
on 16-11-2015
a) Compensation amount due : 90,55,800-
00
b) Interest due : 1,90,44,348-00
TOTAL : 2,81,00,148-00/-
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
D. Total compensation amount with interest remaining
unsettled as on 16-11-2015 of all stages as detailed in
'A', 'B' & 'C' above
1) Compensation due Interest due
A. 16,06,201-00 + 27,21,521-00: 43,27,722-00
B. 61,74,527-00 + 53,35,032-00: 1,15,09,559-00
C. 90,55,800-00 +1,90,44,348-00 :2,81,00,148-00
1,68,36,528-00 2,71,00,901-00 4,39,37,429-00
2) Less - Amount deposited on
16-11-2015 : -
4,06,81,325.00
towards interest 2,71,00,901-00
towards compensation1,35,80,424-00
4,06,81,325-00
3) Compensation due on 16-11-2015:32,56,104-00
4) Interest on Rs.32,56,104-00 at 15% p.a.
from 17-11-2015 to 03-08-2019 for 3
years 8 months 17 days (3.72 years):18,16,906-00
5) Cost decreed by the court :2,52,540-00
6) Total due :53,25,550-00
Total compensation (including interest and cost) due is
Rs.53,25,550-00."
11. The aforesaid memo of calculation makes it very
clear that the judgment debtors have considered the market
value of the land as per the award and added solatium,
additional market value at 12% along with interest at 9% and
15% for the respective period and deducted the payments
made to the petitioners-decree holders on different dates.
Further, after enhancing the compensation by the Reference
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
Court, the judgment debtors had followed same procedure in
adding the market value, solatium, additional market value and
interest at 9% and 15% for the respective period. Again after
enhancement of the compensation by this Court in MFA
No.10128/2010 and connected matter followed the same
procedure and after calculating all the stages, after adding the
cost of the decree at each stage, comes to the conclusion that
there is total due of Rs.53,25,550/-. In my considered view,
the calculation arrived by the respondents-judgment debtors is
strictly in consonance with the rule of appropriation as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GURPREET SINGH
referred supra. The contention of the petitioners that the
Execution Court failed to take note of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUNDER referred supra
has no merit. This Court, in the earlier round of litigation while
remanding the matter had specifically directed the Execution
Court to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of GURPREET SINGH, referred supra and on
such direction the Executing Court passed an appropriate order.
The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SUNDER referred supra is on the point whether the interest is
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28457
W.P. No.51005/2019
HC-KAR
required to be paid on the solatium or not on the rule of
appropriation. It is trite law that this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India cannot be asked to sit as an Appellate
Court and scrutiny each of the errors of the Execution Court as
the scope of power of this Court is limited. In the case on
hand, I do not find any error or perversity in the finding
recorded by the Execution Court under the impugned order and
also in accepting the memo of calculation filed by the judgment
debtors calling for interference in this petition.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is
accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
