Smt K R Satyavathi v. M/S Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2025CRP/787/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution of land-acquisition compensation decree: decree holder Smt K R Satyavathi (revision petitioner) vs KIADB (judgment debtor/respondent). Key terms: CRP No. 787 of 2023 (EX); Section 115 CPC; Execution Case No.1718/2014; excess payment Rs.6,13,760/-; review of own order by Executing Court; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Section 47 CPC; Section 34 interest, 1894 Act; date of award 12.06.2008 vs date of actual taking possession; possession mahazar not traceable; entitlement Rs.1,90,25,195/-; W.P.No.10912/2023 dismissed 04.07.2023; Malleshwari vs. K Suguna, SLP(C)No.12787/2005 (08.09.2025); V Srishananda J; decided 28.11.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:49693.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order in Execution Case No.1718/2014 set aside; execution petition to continue for recovery of the remaining award amount. ¶ORDER

Smt K R Satyavathi Vs M/S Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order in Execution Case No.1718/2014 set aside; execution petition to continue for recovery of the remaining award amount.

¶ORDER

Issue for consideration

Whether the Executing Court could direct the decree holder to repay Rs.6,13,760/- as excess payment in the absence of any application by the judgment debtor — i.e., whether the trial Judge impermissibly reviewed his own earlier order. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

The learned trial Judge in the Executing Court misdirected himself by revisiting the earlier calculations which he had himself accepted, thereby reviewing his own order through the impugned order.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Relying on Malleshwari vs. K Suguna (SLP(C)No.12787/2005), the Court holds that in the absence of any application by the judgment debtor, and with the amendment already confirmed by this Court, the trial Judge's direction to the decree holder to pay Rs.6,13,760/- to KIADB resulted in miscarriage of justice and had to be set aside.

¶17

Key takeaways

This Court holds that the calculation arrived at by the learned trial Judge in the execution proceedings, directing the decree holder to repay the amount, is incorrect.ratio¶19
Having erroneously recorded a finding, the learned trial Judge also closed the execution proceedings, which should not have been done.ratio¶18
As a consequence of setting aside the impugned order, the execution petition in Execution Case No.1718/2014 shall continue for recovery of the remaining award amount.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (V Srishananda J), CRP No. 787 of 2023 (EX), decided 28.11.2025 — Decree holder's revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the Executing Court's order in Ex. Petition No.1718/2014 (VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) directing her to repay Rs.6,13,760/- to KIADB as excess payment and closing the execution as fully satisfied. Held: the trial Judge, having earlier allowed and himself accepted the decree holder's amended calculation (confirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.10912/2023, dismissed 04.07.2023), misdirected himself by revisiting his own accepted calculation and directing repayment in the absence of any application by the judgment debtor — an impermissible review of his own order, drawing on Malleshwari vs. K Suguna (SLP(C)No.12787/2005): under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC an erroneous decision cannot be reheard and corrected, and review cannot be an appeal in disguise. The recalculation (reckoning interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act from the award date 12.06.2008 although no mahazar or document fixed the date of actual taking of possession) was held incorrect, and closure of the execution proceedings was unwarranted. Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; execution petition to continue for recovery of the remaining award amount.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 787 OF 2023 (EX)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT K R SATYAVATHI W/O A S PATTABHIRAMAN AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.607A 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE E BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE -560 010

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA.K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S.KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI D.BOREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2023 PASSED IN EX. PETITION NO.1718/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C. OF II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, THE PRESENT EXECUTION PETITION IS CLOSED AS FULLY SATISFIED, SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF THE DECREE HOLDER IS CONCERNED.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Raghavendra K., counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri D.Boregoda for the respondent.

¶23

Decree holder is the revision petitioner challenging the order of the Executing Court passed in Execution Case No.1718/2014, directing the decree holder to repay the excess amount to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) in a sum of Rs.6,13,760/- and dismissing the execution petition insofar as the balance of the decretal amount.

¶24

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present case are as under:

¶25

3.1. Judgment debtor - KIADB acquired the land of the decree holder and the acquisition proceedings and quantum of compensation has attained finality.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

When the matter stood thus, Execution Petition came to be filed in Execution case No.1718/2014 initially claiming a sum of Rs.38,13,773.35/- and later on the claim was amended on the pretext of improper calculation.

¶30

An amendment to the decretal claim was allowed by the Executing Court, accepting the version of the decree holder that the amount in deposit was first appropriated towards the interest and balance decretal claim was claimed.

¶31

Challenging the said amendment, KIADB filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.10912/2023.

¶32

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on merits disposed of dismissed the said writ petition challenging the amendment by Order dated 04.07.2023, whereby, modified claim in the execution petition was upheld.

¶33

When the decree holder wanted to execute the decree for the remaining amount, KIADB raised the objection with regard to the claim in a sum of Rs.1,90,25,195/- on various grounds including the ground of recording the amount from the date of award instead of date of actual taking possession.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Date of award according to the KIADB, is

¶38

12.06.2008, but there is no document to establish that when was the exact date on which the possession of land was taken by the KIADB.

¶39

Sri D.Boregoda, learned counsel for the respondent – KIADB, submits that despite best efforts, the mahazar taking possession of the land is not found with KIADB in their records.

¶40

Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner, would contend that when KIADB failed to get the amendment set aside from this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, as an afterthought, has raised the objection to the decretal claim which is per se incorrect.

¶41

He would also point out that not only the learned trial Judge in the executing Court, passed a wrong order in directing the decree holder to repay the sum of Rs.6,13,760/which according to the trial Court, is an excess payment made by KIADB, on wrong calculation but also closing the execution petition has resulted in grave injustice.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Having heard the arguments of both sides, it is just

¶45

and necessary for this Court to cull out paragraphs 13.4 to 17 of the impugned order.

¶46

“13.4 The table showing the entitlement of the decree holders as on 01.12.2008:

¶47

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
1.	Market value (both land an	1,30,84,763-00
	building)
2.	Additional market value	12,41,053-00
3.	Solatium	39,25,342-00
4.	Interest under Section 34 of the	7,74,037-00
	1894 Act
	Total	1,90,25,195-00

¶48

14. As against the entitlement of the decree holders to compensation amount of Rs.1,90,25,195/- as on 01.12.2008. The KIADB, has deposited a sum of Rs.1,85,103/- on 01.12.2008. Shortage of amount is Rs.5,25,092/- as on 01.12.2008.

¶49

15. Subsequently, on 24.01.2022, the KIADB has deposited a sum of Rs.20,56,397/-.

¶50

16. Interest on Rs. 5,25,092/- under Section 34 is as follows: (i) 9% p.a., from 01.12.2008 to 11.06.2009 (193 days) is [Rs.5,25,092 X 9% X 193 by 365] Rs.24,989; and 15% p.a., from 12.06.2009 to 24.01.2022 (11 years 7 months 11 days) is [

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(Rs.5,25,092 X 15% X 11) + (Rs.5,25,092 X 237 by 365) = Rs.8,66,402 + Rs. 51,143] is Rs. 9,17,545/-.

¶55

17. The balance compensation amount due as on 24.01.2022 is Rs.5,25,092 (principal) plus Rs. 9,17,545/- ( interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act ) equals to Rs.14,42,637/-. As against the said sum of Rs.14,42,637/-, which is due as on 24.01.2022, the KIADB has deposited a sum of Rs.20,56,397/-. The KIADB has deposited a sum of Rs.6,13,760/- in excess of the entitlement of the decree holders under the award under execution in this case. The decree holder is liable to repay said excess amount of Rs.6,13,760/-. In my considered view, which is necessary for this Court to pass an order directing the decree holder to repay said amount of Rs.6,13,760/- under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”

¶56

As could be seen from the aforesaid paragraphs, learned trial Judge in the executing Court, has misdirected himself in revisiting to the earlier calculations which was accepted by the very same judge.

¶57

In other words, the learned trial Judge has reviewed his own order in the form of the impugned order in directing the decree holder to pay a sum of Rs.6,13,760/-, that too in the absence of any application filed by the judgment debtor.

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Whether a Judge can review his own order when there is no compelling circumstances like fraud etc., was the subject matter of a decision before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malleshwari vs. K Suguna and another , reported in SLP(C)No.12787/2005, disposed of on 08.09.2025, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in 15.3 has held as under:

¶61

“15.3. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.”

¶62

Therefore, in the absence of any application filed by the judgment debtor and when the amendment is allowed by the trial Judge and confirmed by this Court to the execution claim, learned trial Judge holding that the calculation made by the appellant, the revision petition is incorrect and directing the decree holder to pay Rs.6,13,760/- to the KIADB, has resulted in miscarriage of justice and needs to be set aside.

¶63

Needless to emphasize that having erroneously recorded a finding, the learned trial judge has also closed the execution proceedings which should not have been done.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

At any rate since this Court is of the considered opinion that the calculation arrived at by the learned trial Judge in the execution proceedings in directing the decree holder to repay the amount is incorrect, necessarily the execution petition should continue for the recovery of the remaining amount.

¶68

20. Accordingly, the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) Civil Revision petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 04.11.2025 in Execution Case No.1718/2014 is hereby set aside. (iii) As a consequence thereof, the execution petition in Execution Case No.1718/2014 shall continue for the recovery of remaining award amount. (iv) Ordered accordingly.

¶71

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶72

Smt K R Satyavathi v. M/S Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K R Satyavathi v. M/S Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Rishabchand Bansali Vs N.Srinivas Kumar

Yathish Vs Sri. Krishnappa

Smt. Susheelamma Vs Sri Ankaraj

Smt J Shaila Vs Smt Nirmala

Sri. Chandrashekhara, Vs Smt. H.V. Padma

M/S Vibes Healthcare Pvt. Limited Vs Syed Khaleem