Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acqusition Officer vs Smt.Adivemma D/O Basayya Ganachari on 25 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420
WP No. 113847 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 113847 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UKP, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KESHAVREDDY M., AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA)
AND:
SMT. ADIVEMMA D/O. BASAYYA GANACHARI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIR.
1. ALLAYYA S/O. IRAYYA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
2. SHIVALINGAVVA D/O. IRAYYA,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.
3. PRABHAYYA BASAYYA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
4. IRAYYA MAHARUDRAYYA GANACHARI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS.
4A. SHRI RACHAYYA S/O. IRAYYA SARGANACHARI,
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420
WP No. 113847 of 2019
HC-KAR
4B. SHRI BASAYYA S/O. IRAYYA SARGANACHARI,
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.
4C. SHRI MALLAYYA S/O. IRAYYA SARGANACHARI,
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.
4D. SHRI SOMAYYA S/O. IRAYYA SARGANACHARI,
AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.
4E. SMT. BASAMMA W/O. PADAKASHARAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.
4F. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. SHANTAYYA MATHAD,
AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUCHAKANDI VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT-587103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3 AND
R4(A) TO R4(F); HCGP FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT IN
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY THE EXECUTING COURT IN EP.NO.5/2016 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
BAGALKOT AT BAGALKOT BY ORDER DATED 21.02.2019 AND
20.04.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420
WP No. 113847 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This petition is filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
UKP, Bagalkote, challenging the order dated 21.02.2019 and
20.04.2019 in E.P.No.5/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Bagalkote
2. Sri M.Keshav Reddy, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the petitioner submits that in the
execution proceedings, the petitioner-judgment debtor has filed
a memo of calculation which is based on the total award amount,
component of interest and solatium less the amount withdrawn.
However, the trial Court under the impugned order accepted the
memo of calculation filed by the decree holder and ordered to
deposit ₹2,19,48,617/- without assigning any reasons. It is
submitted that the memo of calculation filed by the decree holder
is perused. They have calculated 12% additional market value at
two instances, which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow
the petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420
HC-KAR
3. Per contra, Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-decree holder supports the
impugned order of the Execution Court and submits that the
memo of calculation filed by the decree holder before this Court
on 17.02.2025 is very clear with regard to the principal amount,
solatium, 12% interest, less the amount paid by the SLAO and
thereafter, it is arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners are
required to pay ₹6,69,780,072/- as on the date of filing of the
memo of calculation before this Court. Hence he seeks to dismiss
the petition by directing the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid
amount.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned AAG,
learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the
material available on record.
5. It is not in dispute that the respondent's land has
been acquired for public purpose, award came to be passed and
thereafter the reference Court enhanced the compensation
amount to ₹90/- per square feet. Records indicate that the
respondent filed E.P.No.189/2013 before the II Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Bagalkote to execute the judgment and award
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420
HC-KAR
passed in LAC No.81/2002. The order sheet of the said
proceedings indicates that the petitioners have deposited a
certain amount and thereafter the parties have filed a memo of
calculation. The Executing Court under the impugned order
accepted the memo of calculation filed by the respondent-
decree holder by directing the petitioner-judgment debtor to
deposit ₹2,19,48,617/-. The perusal of the order impugned does
not indicate any reasons for accepting the memo of calculation
filed by the respondent-decree holder. This court vide order
dated 04.09.2025 has directed Additional Registrar General of
this Court to verify both the memo of calculation filed by the
parties and submit the report. The report of the ARG is placed.
The perusal of the report indicates that respondents No.1 to 4
have calculated the interest at the rate of 15% for 5229 days on
the balance amount of ₹14,38,41,290/- whereas the petitioner
calculated the interest for 4480 days. It is further observed that
the records as well as the memo of calculation does not disclose
as to why there is a disparity in calculating the interest for 749
days between the memo calculation filed by the parties. The
report also indicates that as per the memo of calculation filed by
the petitioner, there is no amount due as on the said day.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420
HC-KAR
However, the respondent contended that there is a due of ₹
6,69,78,072/- and the difference between the claim of the
petitioner and respondent is wide and the same cannot be
assessed without the benefit of the trial Court records.
6. I have perused the report of the ARG and also the
memo of calculations filed by the petitioner as well as the
respondent and the impugned order. I am of the considered view
that the order impugned does not indicate the reason for arriving
at a conclusion that there is a due of ₹2,19,48,617/-. The
respondents are now claiming that there is a due of
₹6,69,78,072/- as on the date of filing of the memo of
calculation before this Court i.e. 17.02.2024. In my considered
view, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the
Executing Court to reconsider the memo of calculations afresh by
permitting the parties to file their own memo of calculation in the
said proceedings. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned order dated 21.02.2019 and
20.04.2019 passed in E.P.No.5/2016 by the II
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13420
HC-KAR
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkote is set
aside.
iii. The Executing Court is directed to provide an
opportunity to the petitioner as well as the
respondent/decree holder to file their memo of
calculation afresh and thereafter consider the
same in accordance with law.
iv. It is needless to observe that the Executing
Court shall consider the memo of calculation
and dispose off the case as expeditiously as
possible.
v. It is made clear that this court has not
expressed any opinion with regard to the
merits and demerits of the case.
vi. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
CLK /CT-AN
