Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 773

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Bangalore Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
N. Nanjappa and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6996-6997 of 2021
Decided On : 06-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Uditha Chakravarthy, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Rajesh Mahale, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Execution of decree – All questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in property arising between parties to a proceeding on an application under Order XXI rule 97 or rule 99 CPC and relevant to adjudication of application shall have to be determined by Court dealing with application.

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 – Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 – Section 17 – Resistance to execution of decree – All questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in property arising between parties to a proceeding on an application under Order XXI rule 97 or rule 99 CPC and relevant to adjudication of application shall have to be determined by Court dealing with application – For that a separate suit is not required to be filed – In instant case, it is specific case of appellant-BDA that pursuant to acquisition of land in question, BDA has become absolute owner and said land is vested in BDA and possession was already taken over by BDA and land was handed over to Engineering Section – Applications submitted by BDA for impleadment in execution proceedings and obstruction against handing over possession to decree holder were required to be adjudicated upon by Executing Court by impleading BDA as a party to execution proceedings – Though, in present case, a substantive suit filed by BDA against decree holder and judgment debtor to declare lease agreement as null and void is pending, irrespective of same, considering Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, question relating to right, title or interest of BDA in suit property was required to be adjudicated upon by Executing Court – Order passed by Executing Court dismissing applications filed by BDA for impleadment in execution proceedings and/or dismissing obstruction application and impugned order passed by High Court, are unsustainable and same deserve to be quashed and set aside – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court dismissing writ petitions filed by appellant herein-BDA and order passed by Executing Court dismissing application filed by BDA for impleadment as well as dismissing obstruction application quashed and set aside – Appellant permitted to be impleaded in execution proceedings – Executing Court directed to implead appellant herein-BDA in execution petition and thereafter adjudicate upon obstruction/objection raised by BDA including question relating to right, title or interest claimed by BDA in suit land on the basis of acquisition of suit property/land acquired under provisions of 1976 Act, in exercise of powers under Order XXI rule 97 r/w Rule 101, CPC. (Paras 5.1, 6, 6.1 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos. 37943-37944/2015 (GM-CPC), by which High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions preferred by original applicant – Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and has confirmed the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing applications filed by BDA under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in Execution Case filed by respondent No.1 herein (decree holder) against respondent No.2 herein (judgment debtor), BDA has preferred the present appeals.
Findings of Court:
When the appellant-BDA which has submitted the obstruction/objection in the execution proceedings filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor with respect to suit land which was acquired by BDA and when the BDA claims right, title or interest in the suit property, such obstruction/objection was required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court while considering application/obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97 or Rule 99 CPC.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos. 37943-37944/2015 (GM-CPC), by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions preferred by the original applicant-Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) and has confirmed the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the applications filed by BDA under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in Execution Case No. 2713/2012 filed by respondent No. 1 herein (decree holder) against respondent No. 2 herein (judgment debtor), the BDA has preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:

That land admeasuring 01 acre 15 guntas (disputed land in question) in Survey No. 12/2 of Geddalahalli Village was acquired by BDA in the year 1977 under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1976 Act’). A final notification came to be issued in respect of the said land vide notification dated 02.08.1978 under Section 19 of the 1976 Act. Award came to be passed vide award dated 12.06.1981 awarding compensation of Rs. 17,393.75. According to the appellant-BDA, possession of the acquired land was taken over by the Government as per the mahazar dated 16.07.1981 and was handed over to the Engineering Section of BDA. Thereafter, a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued on 01.04.1982 evidencing the factum of taking possession of the acquired land. It appears that after a period of approximately 17 years and after vesting of the acquired land in question in favour of BDA, respondent no. 1 herein entered into an agreement of lease with respondent no. 2 herein in respect of part of the land in question vide agreement of lease dated 16.08.1999. That respondent no. 1 herein thereafter filed a civil suit being O.S. No. 3797/2000 against respondent no. 2 herein before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for ejectment. It is to be noted that in the said suit, the appellant-BDA was not arrayed as a party.

2.1 The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2008 dismissed the said suit. However, by judgment and order dated 13.06.2012, the High Court allowed the Regular First Appeal No. 468/2008 filed by respondent no. 1 herein and consequently decreed the suit filed by respondent no. 1 herein. Respondent No. 2 herein challenged the judgment and order passed by the High Court before this Court by way of special leave petition, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2013. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 herein-decree holder filed Execution Petition being E.P. No. 2713/2012. It appears that having come to know of the judgment and decree passed by the High Court allowing the appeal, the appellant-BDA filed a suit being O.S. No. 2070/2013 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seeking a declaration that the lease agreement between respondent no. 1 herein-decree holder and respondent no. 2 herein-judgment debtor vide agreement of lease dated 16.08.1999 in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and also prayed for permanent injunction to restrain respondent no. 1 herein-original landowner–decree holder from executing the decree passed in O.S. No. 3797/2000.

2.2 BDA also filed two applications under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC in the execution proceedings for impleadment and for deferring the execution proceedings till disposal of suit filed by it being O.S. No. 2070/2013. The aforesaid two applications filed by BDA came to be rejected by the Executing Court vide common order dated 29.01.2015 mainly on the ground that there was no material on record to show that pursuant to the acquisition, the BDA had taken possession of the said land and therefore the BDA cannot obstruct or object to the execution of the decree passed by the competent Court.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document