Case: Bangalore Development Authority Vs. N. Nanjappa and another

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 dissatisfied with the common order passed by the Executing Court rejecting the applications filed by BDA under Order XXI Rule 97 r/w Rule 101 CPC, the obstructor-BDA filed two writ petitions before the High Court being Writ Petition Nos. 37943- 37944/2015. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid two writ petitions. Hence, the present appeals are at the instance of the obstructor-BDA.

Court's reasoning:
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the BDA is claiming right, title or interest in the land in question being acquired under the provisions of the 1976 Act. It is required to be noted that the lease agreement between the decree holder and the judgment debtor is subsequent to the acquisition of the suit land. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the appellant – BDA that such a transaction is null and void once the suit land for which the lease agreement was executed was acquired under the provisions of the 1976 Act. Moreover, the award was also declared and a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act evidencing taking over possession of the land by BDA was also published. Therefore, 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 the application/obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97 or Rule 99 CPC.6. In the instant case, it is the specific case of the appellant – BDA that pursuant to the acquisition of the land in question, the BDA has become the absolute owner and the said land is vested in the BDA and possession was already taken over by the BDA and the land was handed over to the Engineering Section.Therefore, the applications submitted by BDA for impleadment in the execution proceedings and the obstruction against handing over the possession to the decree holder were required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court by impleading the BDA as a party to the execution proceedings. Though, in the present case, a substantive suit being O.S. No. 2070/2013 filed by the BDA against the decree holder and the judgment debtor to declare the lease agreement as null and void is pending, irrespective of the same, considering Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, the question relating to right, title or interest of the BDA in the suit property was required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court.6.1 In view of the above, the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the applications filed by the BDA for impleadment in the execution proceedings and/or dismissing the obstruction application, and the impugned order passed by the High Court, are unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside.