Dismissed

Sri Nanjundappa v. C Anjanappa

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2022WP/4577/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting impleading application for share in land acquisition compensation was dismissed. The High Court held that a compromise decree entitled only named respondents to compensation and petitioners had no right to claim share.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners saddled with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000 payable to Respondents.

Sri Nanjundappa Vs C Anjanappa — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4577 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.NANJUNDAPPA S/O CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶9

SRI.PILLAPPA S/O CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶10

SMT.NARAYANAMMA D/O CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶11

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI EAST TALUK BENGALURU

¶12

SMT.AKKAYAMMA D/O CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶13

SMT.MUNITHAYAMMA D/O CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶14

¶15

PETITIONER NOS.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT KENDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHITAMANI TALUK

¶16

SMT.GOWRAMMA D/O CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT KURGAL VILLAGE VEMAGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶17

SMT.DEVAMMA D/O CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.3D/M-314 3^RD CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, 3^RD D MAIN OMBR LAYOUT, BHUVANAGIRI BENGALURU - 560043

¶18

SRI.M.SRINIVASA S/O PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT KURGAL VILLAGE VEMAGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶19

...PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SMT.HEMALATHA B.V., ADVOCATE FOR B.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND

¶21

C.ANJANAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

¶22

¶23

1(A). SMT.AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE C.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 019

¶24

1(B). RAMESH S/O LATE C.ANJANAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶25

1(B)(1). SMT.LATE MANJULA W/O LATE RAMESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT JYOTHIPURA MANDUR POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 049

¶26

1(B)(2). KUM.THEJASWINI D/O LATE RAMESH J.A. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT JYOTHIPURA MANDUR POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 049

¶27

1.(C). SRI.DAYANANDA S/O LATE C.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK

¶28

1.(D). SMT.SHANATHAMMA D/O C.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.11, 9^TH CROSS

¶29

¶30

GANESHA TEMPLE ROAD CHOLURUPALYA BENGALURU

¶31

1(E). SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O THIMMARAYAPPA D/O LATE C.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶32

1(F). SMT.ANUSUYA W/O MUNINARYANA D/O LATE C.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT CHOLANAKAYANAHALLI NEAR ELUMANDEMMA TEMPLE R.T.NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 032

¶33

1(G). SMT.PADMA

¶34

W/O THIMMAIAH D/O LATE C.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT ANUR VILLAGE CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 049

¶35

1(H). SMT.PUSHPA

¶36

W/O RAMASWAMY D/O LATE C.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS CHIKKANAHALLI JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶37

¶38

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VIVESWARAIAH CENTRE, 3^RD FLOOR PODIUM BLOCK AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 02

¶39

DEFENSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, CAMBRIDGE ROAD OPP. C.M.S OFFICE AGARAM POST BENGALURU - 560 007

¶40

SRI.RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 049

¶41

…..RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI.L.ABDUL REYAZ KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.1 (A TO E, G AND H)

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT DATED 03.12.2021 ON I.A.NO.1, I.A.NO.5 AND I.A.NO.6, IN EXECUTION CASE NO.351/2011 ON THE FILE OFF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE - J AND ETC.,

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The captioned writ petition is filed by the impleading applicant questioning the order passed on I.A.No.5 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.,

¶48

The present petitioners are claiming a share in the award passed in LAC No.173/1999 on the strength of the compromise decree passed in R.A No.87/2015 on the file of the 9^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. The present petitioners claimed that in terms of the compromise decree passed in R.A No.87/2015, the respondents - Decree Holders are not entitled to receive entire compensation determined in LAC No.173/1999. The said application is strongly resisted by the Decree Holder by contending that in terms of the compromise passed in the above said appeal, it is only the respondents - Decree Holders, who are entitled to receive the entire compensation

¶49

¶50

deposited in LAC No.173/1999, which pertains to Sy. No.113. On these set of reasoning, the Executing Court rejected the impleading application. It is this order, which is under challenge.

¶51

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners - impleading applicants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents - decree holders. Perused the compromise decree passed in R.A.No.87/2015.

¶52

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents - Decree Holder has furnished the copy of the LAC award passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.173/1999.

¶53

The compromise decree is not in dispute. The petitioners fairly submit to this Court that the matter was amicably settled in the pending

¶54

¶55

RA No.87/2015 and the matter is amicably resolved and a compromise decree is passed in RA No.87/2015. If the petitioners have amicably settled their disputes and admit terms of the compromise, I am unable to understand as to how the petitioners could have filed an impleading application seeking a share in the compensation deposited in LAC No.173/1999. Para No.5 of the compromise decree would clinch the controversy between the parties. Therefore, I deem it fit to cull out the relevant paragraph No.5 of the compromise decree drawn in R.A. No.87/2015 and the same reads as under;

¶56

"5. The entire compensation amount which is in deposit in LAC 173/99 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.113, totally measuring 2 acres, situated at Jyothipura Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, shall be paid to the LRs of Sri.Anjanappa equally after deducting the expenses."

¶57

¶58

At this juncture, the learned counsel

¶59

appearing for the petitioners submitted that the compensation determined in LAC No.173/1999 not

¶60

only pertains to Sy. No.113 but also pertains to Sy. No.112 and therefore, she contends that the petitioners are entitled for share in the compensation determined relating to Sy. No.112. However, this Court, in view of the said statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has gone through the award passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.173/1999. On perusal of the said award, this Court would find that the award is passed only in respect of Sy. No.113 and does not include Sy. No.112. Therefore, this court is of the view that statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is factually incorrect and contrary to the records. If the petitioners have agreed and have given up their claim in respect of Sy. No.113, which is

¶61

¶62

evident from the paragraph No.5 of the compromise decree, then I am of the view that the petitioners have no locus standi to assert and claim their shares in the compensation deposited by the authorities relating to Sy. No.113. The attempt made by the petitioners before the Executing Court is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and this high handedness is an attempt to protract the release of the compensation amount. The petitioners have no right to approach this court by filing the instant writ petition. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners have to be saddled with exemplary cost for having unnecessarily filed impleading application when they had no right to seek compensation in so far as Sy. No.113 is concerned. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to the dismissed by imposing cost. Hence, I pass the following;

¶63

¶64

ORDER

¶65

The Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/payable to the

¶66

respondents - Decree Holders.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

NBM

Sri Nanjundappa v. C Anjanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nanjundappa v. C Anjanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramananda H a Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment

Sri H Munivenkatappa Vs Sri M Narayana Swamy

Sri T v Gopalakrishna Shetty Vs Smt. Papamma

Gurumallesha Vs Parvathamma

M/S Sree Seshachala Builders Limited Vs M/S Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. H. Mallikarjunappa Vs Sri. Nagaraj N. C.