1. It is unfortunate that the State Government is a litigant to a frivolous writ petition filed against the order dated 20.02.2017 holding that the Decree Holder is entitled to the compensation amount mentioned in the execution petition. Time was granted till 01.03.2017 to take steps.

2. The parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the State Government that the State had acquired the house property measuring 30’ x 40’, Survey No.79, Voddihatti, Madla village, Chikkmagaluru taluk, Assessment No.6, Siruvase Grama Panchayath, Jagara Hobli, Chikkmagaluru District. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.165/2002 for a declaration against the petitioners & respondent No.2 contending that he is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the house property. After contest, suit came to be dismissed. As against the said Judgment and decree, the 1st respondent filed appeal in R.A.No.235/2010 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Chikkmagaluru. The Appellate Court, after hearing both the parties, by its Judgment and Decree dated 01.08.2011, has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. In view of the same, the 1st respondent filed Execution Petition No.145/2016 for implementation of the Judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.235/2010. The executing Court, by the impugned order dated 20.02.2017, has held that the decree-holder is entitled for recovery of the compensation amount. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioners/State.

5. Sri.Vasanth V.Fernandes, learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that compensation amount was already paid to the 1st defendant/Judgment Debtor No.1 during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.165/2002 on 24.02.2004 itself and ultimately, suit came to be dismissed. He further submits that it was brought to the notice of the lower Appellate Court that in spite of the same the lower Appellate Court has proceeded to allow the appeal. When the entire amount was paid to the 1st defendant/Judgment Debtor No.1, question of paying the amount to the plaintiff-decree holder does not arise. He further contended that the very decree passed by the lower Appellate Court in R.A.No.235/2000 has become infructuous. Therefore, the execution petition filed on the basis of decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is not maintainable. He further contended that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the 1st defendant and not from the State Government. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

6. Having heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner-State, it is an undisputed fact that 1st respondent who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, filed a suit in O.S.No.165/2002 to declare that he is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the house property in question claiming that he is the owner of the suit schedule property measuring 30’ x 40’ situated in Survey No.79 of Vaddihatti village, Madla village, Chikkamagalur taluk. Admittedly, the suit came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the 1st respondent filed an appeal in R.A.No.235/2010 before the Fast Track Court, Chikkmagalur. The lower Appellate Court, after considering the entire material on record, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in occupation of the suit property as on the date of the suit?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendants 1 to 3 are trying to deprive him of his right to claim compensation in respect of the suit property?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction?

(iv) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for any interference by this Court?

(v) What order?

7. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff proved that he was in occupation of suit property as on the date of