CASE TITLE:
Bangalore Development Authority Versus N. Nanjappa and another
DATE OF ORDER:
06-12-2021
JUDGE(S):
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Bangalore Development Authority
Respondent: N. Nanjappa and another
FACTS
- According to the Bangalore Development Authority Act of 1976, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired some land in 1977. However, a disagreement emerged regarding a portion of the purchased property, and after years of disagreement, a leasing arrangement was reached. After that, respondent 1 successfully served respondent 2 with an ejection petition, and the BDA filed an appeal to contest the transfer of the property to the decree holder.
- The BDA's applications were denied by the Executing Court, and the ensuing writ petitions before the High Court were similarly dismissed. The BDA then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The appellants argued that a claim of title to the subject property is sufficient for raising an objection rather than the need that the objector be in possession of the property.
- However, in this instance, the government gave the BDA possession of the land. In addition, the appellants argued that the respondent 1 and respondent 2 had entered into the lease agreement in violation of the law after the BDA purchased and took possession of the property. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the BDA does not actually possess the relevant property.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
- The learned attorney representing the appellant, BDA, vehemently asserted that both the High Court and the learned Executing Court misread and misunderstood Order XXI Rule 97 r/w Rule 101 CPC when they rejected BDA's applications to be included in the execution petition as an obstructionist.
- It is argued that raising an impediment or objection to the decree that is intended to be carried out does not require the objector to be in actual possession of the objected-to property; rather, it suffices that the objector asserts title to the objected-to property. Even yet, in this instance, it is BDA's case and the Engineering Section of BDA received ownership from the government.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
- counsel representing the respondents has attempted to uphold the rulings made by the Executing Court and the High Court. According to the decree holder, the original landowner, the BDA has not actually taken possession of the property in question; rather, judgement debtor respondent no. 2 is in possession of the property, which must be transferred to respondent no. 1 - the decree holder - in accordance with the High Court's ruling.
- It is argued that the Executing Court had every authority to reject the requests made by BDA in accordance with Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. It is argued that even though the property in question may have been acquired, an application made pursuant to Order XXI Rule 97 CPC is subject to rejection unless and until the obstructionist's possession is established and proved. The Executing Court correctly dismissed the application, and the High Court correctly upheld the Executing Court's decision.
ANALYSIS OF COURT
- It must be made clear right once that the BDA is claiming a right, title, or interest in the land in question that is being acquired in accordance with the 1976 Act. It is important to remember that the lease between the decree holder and the judgement debtor was signed after the suit land was purchased. Determining that such a transaction is void once the suit land for which the lease agreement was executed was acquired in accordance with the 1976 Act is the case on behalf of the appellant, BDA.
- A notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act that proved BDA had taken possession of the land was also published together with the declaration of the award and its declaration. Because of this, the Executing Court was required to rule on the obstruction/objection by Order XXI Rule 97 or Rule 99 CPC when the appellant-BDA submitted it in the execution proceedings brought by the decree holder against the judgement debtor with regard to suit land that was acquired by BDA and when the BDA asserts a right, title, or interest in the suit property.
- Since all questions, including those pertaining to right, title, or interest in the property, that arise between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Order XXI rule 97 or rule 99 CPC must be resolved, the Court handling the application must do so in accordance with Order XXI Rule 101 CPC. A second lawsuit is not need to be filed for that. Regarding hindrance of immovable property possession, see Order XXI Rule 97.
- In the present case, the appellant BDA is the particular party because, as a result of the acquisition of the subject property, the BDA has acquired ownership of the entire parcel, has vested title in the BDA, and has already taken possession before transferring it to the Engineering Section. In order to execute the BDA as a party to the execution processes, the Executing Court had to decide on the applications for inclusion in the execution procedures and the impediment to turning over possession to the decree holder.
- Despite the fact that a substantive suit, O.S. No. 2070/2013, has been filed by the BDA against the decree holder and the judgement debtor to declare the lease agreement null and void, the Executing Court had to rule on the question of the BDA's right, title, or interest in the suit property under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC.
- In light of the foregoing, both the impugned order issued by the High Court and the order issued by the Executing Court dismissing the BDA's applications for involvement in the execution proceedings and/or dismissing the obstruction application are unjustified and should be overturned.
- Therefore, the current appeals are successful. The contested judgement and order from the High Court dated 21.03.2016 dismissing the writ petitions brought by the appellant herein, BDA, and the order from the Executing Court dated 29.01.2015 dismissing the application for impleadment and obstruction brought by BDA are hereby reversed and annulled. The appellant may be introduced as evidence throughout the execution process.
- The Executing Court is instructed to name the appellant in this case, BDA, in the execution petition and then rule on the obstruction or objection raised by BDA, including the issue of the right, title, or interest claimed by BDA in the suit land on the basis of the suit property's acquisition under the terms of the 1976 Act, in accordance with the authority granted by Order XXI rule 97 r/w Rule 101 CPC. After receiving a copy of this judgement, the aforementioned must be finished within six months.
