Disposed

Malleshappa and Anr. v. the Executive Engineer and Ors.

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2024WP/203622/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition without interfering with the lower court's order allowing the impleadment of a fourth respondent claiming a share in land acquisition compensation, subject to directions for expedited appeal disposal and specific disbursement instructions.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without interfering with impugned order; First Appellate Court directed to dispose appeal expeditiously; Compensation disbursement guided to set aside disputed share pending appeal o

Malleshappa and Anr. Vs the Executive Engineer and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

��

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 203622 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MALLESHAPPA S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA AGASTEERTH AGE:65 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE,

¶10

R/O NADIKOOR, TQ. & DIST.KALABURAGI.

¶11

NAGABHUSAHN

¶12

S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA AGASTEERTH AGE:55 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE,, R/O NANDIKOOR, TQ. & DIST.KALABURAGI.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R MALIPATIL,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶17

KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY

¶18

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

& DRAINAGE BOARD, KALABURAGI DIVISION, KALABURAGI. – 585 102.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI DISTRICT KALABURAGI.- 585 102.

¶21

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KALABURAGI – 585 102.

¶22

GANGADEVI W/O HANMANTHRAO PATIL AGE:43 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,

¶23

R/O KUVEMPU NAGAR, BEHIND ASIAN MALL,

¶24

KALABURAGI – 585 102.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. CHAITANYA KUMAR.C.M, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. G.B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R-2 & R-3 SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶27

��

¶28

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER ON I.A IL OF LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI, DATED 18.11.2019, IN E.P.NO.229/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶34

This petition by the Decree Holders in Ex.P.No.229/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 18.11.201, whereby the application I.A.No.1 filed by the 4^th respondent – impleading applicant seeking impleadment in the aforesaid execution proceedings was allowed by the Executing court.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶36

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is

¶37

an undisputed fact that the petitioners are the brothers of 4^th respondent – Gangadevi, all them being children of late

¶38

��

¶39

¶40

Shivasharanappa Agasteerth. The petitioners herein instituted the reference proceedings in LAC No.82/2014 which was allowed by the Reference court by awarding enhanced compensation in favour of the petitioners. In pursuance of the judgment and award of the Reference court, the petitioners instituted the execution proceedings against respondents 1 to 3 – Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board and the State of Karnataka to implement and enforce the said judgment and award passed by the Reference court. In the meanwhile, the 4^th respondent instituted a suit in O.S.No.55/2011 claiming 1/7^th share in the subject land which was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.06.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the 4^th respondent filed an appeal in R.A.No.67/2017, in which, the 1^st appellate court passed an interim order dated 12.09.2018 restraining disbursement / release of the alleged 1/7^th share of the 4^th respondent in the execution proceedings in favour of the petitioners herein. Subsequently, the 4^th respondent filed the instant impleading application, which was contested by the petitioners and culminated in the impugned order allowing the impleading application filed by the 4^th respondent by the Executing court, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶41

¶42

��

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon

¶44

the judgment of this Court in the case of Choodanatha Setty vs. Gopalachetty – ILR 1995 KAR 1815, in order to contend that an application for impleadment was not maintainable in execution proceedings and consequently, the question of permitting the applicant to come on record would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submits that in the light of the interim order passed in R.A.No.67/2017, whereby the 1^st appellate court restrained disbursement / release of the 1/7^th share of the 4^th respondent in the subject matter of the execution proceedings i.e., compensation amount, the Executing court was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶46

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in addition to the fact that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute, it is also an undisputed fact that the 4^th respondent has already filed an appeal in R.A.No.67/2017, in which, there is an interim order restraining disbursement / release of her 1/7^th share in

¶47

��

¶48

¶49

the subject compensation amount. It is needless to state that the subject matter of the instant execution proceedings is the compensation payable pursuant to the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.82/2014.

¶50

As stated supra, there is a dispute between the petitioners and 4^th respondent as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the entire compensation amount or as to whether the 4^th respondent would also be entitled to alleged 1/7^th share of the said compensation amount; so also, the said compensation amount as awarded by the Reference Court is undisputedly the subject matter of the execution proceedings. It follows therefrom that instead of driving the 4^th respondent to take separate steps with regard to her alleged 1/7^th share, if any, after conclusion of R.A.No.67/2017, it would be just and proper to permit the 4^th respondent to come on record in execution proceedings for the limited purpose of enabling her to recover her alleged 1/7^th share in the event she succeeds in R.A.No.67/2017.

¶51

Under these circumstances, in the light of the pendency of R.A.No.67/2017, in which there is an interim order restraining disbursement / release of alleged 1/7^th share of the 4^th respondent,

¶52

6 - ��

¶53

I am of the considered opinion that the Executing court was fully justified in allowing the impleading application filed by the 4^th respondent by possing the impugned order which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity can nor the same be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423.

¶54

9. In the result, I pass the following;

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) Petition is hereby disposed off without interfering with the impugned order.

¶57

ii) The First Appellate Court before whom R.A.No.67/2017 is pending, is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

¶58

iii) It is made clear that the impleadment of 4^th respondent in Execution Petition No.229/2019 vide the impugned order is restricted only to her alleged 1/7^th share in the subject matter of execution proceedings and petitioners would be entitled to remaining 6/7^th share in the compensation.

¶59

��

¶60

¶61

iv) It is further directed that in the event respondents 1 to 3 deposits compensation amount before the Executing Court, the Executing court shall disburse 6/7^th share in favour of the petitioners and the remaining 1/7^th share of the amount deposited by respondents 1 to 3 would be subject to final outcome of R.A.No.67/2017.

¶62

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands

¶63

disposed of.

¶64

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶65

Srl. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Malleshappa and Anr. v. the Executive Engineer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malleshappa and Anr. v. the Executive Engineer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs MD Maqsood Ahmed

Tanveer Begum and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

The State Government Employees Housing Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vijayapura Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Raghvendra Vs Mahammad Patel

Mallikarjun S/O Antappa Ganga Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Amberish and Anr. Vs Karnataka State Election Commission and Ors.