: 1 :
IN TEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23m DAY OF MARCH 2_0;O"9 5 ;_. A'
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JU$TICE Ej1T'J..:CiUNJAI; -
WRIT PE'I'i'I'ION NO.6G361}i3Q{59(z(}M»C1'PC)" - 2 " V
E'1*moNER
(BY SR1.
._.-u.---.-.-m....§-
1, ASSISTAMFICQMMLSSIONER,
'-EIUN_€~{Ji~€.iZz), DIST;"'BA'GALKOT.
L' ':~;;:-.M_'r' vMA§im§:*1*AwwA,
. '«.E¥J[U~vMAVL%£*..NT£1PPA KARADI,
K SINCE DECEASED. BY HER LE9.
2(A}."sRr"C;ANۤADHAR,
~ as/0 MMANATAPPA KARADI,
v " AGE 46 YEARS, occ: BUSINESS,
we '1LLAKAL., HUNGUNE3 TALUKA,
'REI"'.~BY HIS SPECIAL POWER
.. A::*ro:'er~:EY HOLDER, SR1 MAHANTESH,
' ...s;0 GURUPADAPPA KADIWAL,
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
RI 0 BAGALKOT. (COMMON)
...RESPONDEN'FS
{BY SR}. F'.V.I"A'I'II.., ADV. FOR R~--2A
SR1 R.K.HA'I°1'I, HCGP FOR R4)
:2:
THESE PETETIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2i.?6'---AND ' .
227 01? THE CONS'i'i'I'U'I'ION op' mam PRAYING TC*._Q{}A*SH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE i_i~~A..[}DL;'=.V czvzg. v
JUDGE(SR.DN) BAGALKOT IN EX.PE'}"N. ANQ.27o/0? Dmter»,
03/01/09 VIBE ANNEXURE «.9 AND: 30109172008_Vi--DEJANP~i:-5.
THESE PETITIONS ARE CC )M{_NG C)N me, 'T5i?I if.'§_'DAY,--'THE = "
ceum MAGE THE FOLLOWING:
These of by this
common ifi1e'*:,:n1atters are listed for
ordersfen e${t:eI;si_of:._of _ --
52-. _ uiaxeid .'ir1 :e1uestion was acquired by the
. V. A"petjitieniét-~j§1d@eIif"{iebtor for establishing market yard.
ft.<;} e2iy..§11at the matter came up to this Court in
Z _ Mieeellaiieofié First Appeal No.2844/1995. This Court
' {he apmal and enhanced market value of the
land from £315,000/H to Rs.25,000/----. This
" further directed that the respozldent-decree
" holder is emitlcd to solatium at 30% on enhanced
compensation, he is also entitled to the illterest at the
2'
rate of 9% per azmum on the enhanced "
awarded for one year from the dete of it 2
of the land in question V i.e.
thereafter at the rate of the '
enhanced amount paiator _ The
Court also further f:.f;?«;=*",:;'j')'.()I1é(':I}t-(iCCI'€e
holder is eiititfici-. in terms of
amended Acquisition A0': at
the rateof enhanced amount of
oompeiisation of preliminary notification
i.e date of taking possession
V' .31/:_i.:984z. also further directed that there
of the amounts aixeady paid till then.
It i: decree holder-respondent No.2 was not
with the determination of the market value,
filed a special ieeve petition before the Apex
The Apex Court declined to gent special lwve.
The judgment and award passed by the reference Court
as Well as this Court was put in execution. During the fl
/’
if
: 5 :
Court has recorded 3. finding that the merrier. of
calculation filed by the decree
verification, eouid not have directed ,
further submits that the
holder is incorrect and thejdrone 1 e.
judgment debtor is correct. 2 ~. ii
4. Mr. F.V.Pati}, c”*u:nsel appearing for
the dee1’ee»~.suomits ‘ “tb_._at§ the judgment debtors
have omit the statutory benefits
awarded MFA. He further submits that
‘~ _ V’gi’:-*.er?:’by the decree holder is correct.
shave perused the impugned order passed
by A’:.33r;ecut§ng Court. Apparently, the Executing
5 has found that the memos of calculation filed by
. the petitioner—judgnent debtor as well the decree holder
are required to be verified nevertheless has rejected the
memo of calculation fled by the judgment debtor. Thea
,/{V
t 6 :
memo of calculation filed by the judgment debtor
made available by the learned counsel
decree holder. A perusal of the _
caletllation. does not reflect
inasmuch as it appears there. oreission V ,
the judgment debtor to tlle
awarded by this ‘ ‘A
6; “”” as “of calculation filed by
the decree court itself is in doubt
inasmuch as it hase_tated that it requires verification.
«.111 faiceaof ttlis”‘anomo1y, the Executing Court could
e_r1?0t_ ” issuance of attachment warrant.
{§bs(fteuely’,”ti:;e memo of calculation filed by the decree
=.ho1de1:” ge well as the judwlent debtor is still in a initial
inasmuch as the Executing Court has not
. K eecepted the memo of calctfiaolon filed by the decree
holder as it does not spell truth. Having regard to the
fix
:7:
facts, I am of the View that the Executing .
justified in issuing attachment warrant. H ‘ ‘V
7. Insofar as the or “oi; the = d’
memos of ealctxlationixl “:t}1’e.. ‘thatothe said
order need not be ‘4 however, if an
observation debtor as
well as to file their fresh
memg meet ends of justice.
cannot resile from the
award pessed in Miscellaneous First
this Court had awarded all the
tietiefits after amendment, which is extracted
sboire. V(‘,€:§x1§V::eque:1t1y, the following order is passed:
dd ” = The impug1ed order of attachment in Writ
Petition No.6036 1 / 2009 is quashed.
2. Writ I~”etition No.60360/2009 stands
dismsed of. fl
/’
/
:8:
the Apex Court in ‘c:asVc”._of’ S
Singh vs. Union of.V_11:di§
2006(2) LACC ‘
Memo of flied in
compliance and award
passes} by: ‘ tiixc Misceflaneous
Petitions h.
The conclude the
_ouier’ of three months from
the
dateof
_ Government Pleader, is
memo of appearance in four weeks. .
gm.
Sd/-
JUDGE
The Executing Court: shall
consideration the decision by u