IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.38254 OF 2017 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
C.V.Palakshan S/o late C.S.Veerappa, 88 years R/at No.371 Mahadevpet, Madikeri Kodagu District – 571 201.
(By Shri.Karumbaiah T.A., Advocate) AND:
... PETITIONER 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer The Harangi Reservoir Project and Kabini Reservoir Project Andolana Circle, Ramakrishnanagar Mysore – 570 022.
2. D.Lingappa Advocate S/o late K.M.Devaiah, 65 years R/at M.D.Block Somwarpet Town & Taluk Kodagu District – 571 236.
(By Shri.T.I.Abdulla, Advocate for R2 ... RESPONDENTS Shri.Vijayakumar A.Patil, AGA for R1) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annex-E, the order dated 5.8.17 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mysore on application filed by the R-2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC in Execution 328/16 and reject the said application and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner has assailed order dated 05.08.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mysore on an application filed by 2nd respondent under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short) in Execution No.328/2016 pending before the said Court (Annexure-E to the Writ Petition).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being a decree holder to an extent of 22% of the share in the compensation to be deposited in respect of LAC No.1/1984, he filed the aforesaid Execution Petition seeking execution of his portion of the decree. He submits that 2nd respondent could not have sought impleadment in his Execution Petition on the premise that 2nd respondent and other persons are jointly entitled to 78% of the compensation amount in respect of LAC No.1/1984. He further submits that the Executing Court would not have directed the petitioner herein to implead other persons who are entitled to a share as petitioner is not concerned with the compensation awarded to other persons and that his interest is only with regard to 22% of the compensation awarded to him in respect of which Execution Petition has been filed 3. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent submits that the award passed in LAC No.1/1984 being a common and joint award, the execution of said award would have to take place simultaneously and that petitioner cannot seek his share of the compensation in the absence of other persons who are also entitled to a share in the said compensation amount. He further submits that the Executing Court is justified in impleading 2nd respondent in the execution proceeding. He also submits that 2nd respondent would take the responsibility of impleading other persons who are also entitled to a share in the 78% of the compensation amount.
4. In response to this submission, petitioner’s counsel submits that any controversy or delay caused on account of the impleadment of other persons who are entitled to a share of 78% of the compensation amount should not prejudice the right, title or interest of petitioner in so far as 22% of compensation that he is entitled to and neither should there be any delay on account of the said factors. He further submits that if 2nd respondent would take the responsibility of impleading other persons in the very Execution Petition, this Court may permit him to do so. But the impleadment should not cause any prejudice to the expeditious disposal of the execution petition filed by petitioner herein.
5. Learned AGA who appears for respondent No.1 submits that appropriate orders may be made by this Court having regard to the nature of rights of the respective parties.
6. In so far as the compensation awarded for acquisition of the land is concerned, there has been proportionate distribution of the compensation amount in the ratio of 22% to petitioner and 78% to respondent No.2 and other persons who are jointly entitled to it. It is only respondent No.2 who sought impleadment in the execution petition filed by petitioner herein. The Executing Court has permitted impleadment of respondent No.2 but respondent No.2 is not the only person who is entitled to a share in 78% of the compensation amount awarded. Therefore, 2nd respondent is directed to implead other persons who are entitled to a share in the compensation amount totalling up to 78%. However, any dispute with regard to disbursement of 78% of the compensation amount should not cause any delay or prejudice the right of petitioner herein to seek his 22% of the compensation amount.
7. In the circumstances, while directing 2nd respondent herein to implead other persons who are together entitled to a share in 78% of the compensation amount, it is also observed that when the compensation amount is deposited by the respondent-authority, the Executing Court shall pass orders with regard to 22% of the amount that the petitioner is entitled to and that there shall be no delay caused in the disbursement of the said amount to the petitioner on account of impleadment of other sharers in the Execution Petition. To that extent, the impugned order is modified.
Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Before parting, the respondent-authority is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Executing Court in an expeditious manner, if the same has already not been deposited.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*