IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1085 OF 2019 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE K.R. NAGAR MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (BY SHRI SWAROOP T., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 570 005 3. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB DIVISION HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 105 4. THASHILDHAR K.R. NAGAR TALUK K.R. NAGAR MYSORE DISTRICT-571602 ... APPELLANT 5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HUNSUR SUB DIVISION HUNSUR MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 105 6. SMT. VANAJAKSHI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O LATE C.S. RAMACHANDRA 7. C.R. SRIDHATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE C.S. RAMACHANDRA 8. C.R. PRAVEENA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE C.S. RAMACHANDRA 9. SMT. C.R. ANITHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O LATE C.S. RAMACHANDRA RESPONDENT NO.3 to 6 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF CHANDAGALU VILLAGE HEBBAL HOBLI K.R. NAGAR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 602 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI S.H. PRASHANTH, AGA FOR R1-R5 & SHRI R. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6-R9) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE VACATING OF STAY ORDER DATED 06/03/2019 PASSED IN W.P.NO.18295/2018 (LA-RES) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first to fifth respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the sixth to ninth respondents.
2. By this appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 6th March 2019 passed by the learned Single Jude in the writ petition filed by the appellant. The first prayer in the writ petition was for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner and the Land Acquisition Officer to enquire whether the subject land which was acquired belongs to the State Government or to the sixth to ninth respondents or their predecessor. The second prayer was to keep in abeyance the execution application pending in the Civil Court for execution of the award made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the said Act of 1894’).
3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, vacated the interim stay granted earlier to the execution petition. The learned Single Judge held that in the reference under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894, the present appellant was a respondent. By the award passed in the reference, the compensation granted to the eighth and ninth respondents was enhanced. The appellant challenged the said judgment and award by filing MFA No.10035/2008 before this Court. By the judgment and order dated 15th July 2010, the said MFA was dismissed. The learned Single Judge observed that as the judgment and award made by the Civil Court has attained finality, the execution cannot be stayed.
4. In terms of the statement recorded in the order dated 12th June 2019, the appellant has applied for review of the judgment and the order passed in MFA. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the review petition is pending.
5. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not possible for us to interfere with the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that as the judgment and award in reference under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894 has attained finality, the execution application for executing the said judgment and award cannot be stayed. This view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with at all.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that a sum of Rs.49 lakh has been already deposited by the appellant in the execution application towards the decreetal amount.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant prays for continuation of the interim relief granted in this appeal till the disposal of the review petition. The said request is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the sixth to ninth respondents by contenting that the review petition is belatedly filed after a lapse of nine years and the issues raised by the appellant have been dealt with while deciding MFA.
8. Only in view of the deposit of a sum of Rs.49 lakh that we are inclined to continue with the ad-interim relief for a limited time to enable the appellant to seek appropriate relief in the review petition.
9. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is dismissed. However, no adjudication is made on the merits of the pending review petition.
(ii) To enable the appellant to apply for appropriate interim relief in the review petition, we direct that the interim relief granted on 12th June 2019 will continue to operate for a period of two months from today.
The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB