AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
Perused the records.
Petitioner who is the applicant/objector in
Execution Petition No.2116/2009 is assailing the order
dated 14.03.2016 passed in said execution proceedings
by the learned II Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru dismissing the application filed by
petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC - Annexure-J.
Land bearing Sy.No.64/11 measuring 2
acres situated at Kattagollahalli village came to be
acquired by first respondent for the benefit of second
respondent and compensation of Rs.60,000/- per acre
came to be awarded. On reference being made in LAC
No.219/1999, reference Court awarded a sum of
Rs.3,45,000/- per acre and this Court in MFA
No.2585/2004 c/w MFA Crob.No. 392/2017 dismissed
the appeal filed by first respondent herein and allowed
cross objections filed by third respondent herein by
enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,40,000/- per acre.
Third respondent in order to enjoy the fruits of the
award, filed execution petition No.2116/2009 before
City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. In the said proceedings,
petitioner herein filed an application as objector
contending interalia that he is the owner of property
and he had already approached Civil Court in O.S.No.
2/2012 with a prayer for declaration to declare that he
is entitled to receive compensation and said suit had
been decreed on 03.04.2012. In order to enjoy fruits of
the decree so obtained by him, he filed Execution
Petition No.78/2012. In the meanwhile, beneficiary of
the land acquired had deposited the award amount in
Execution Petition No.2116/2009 which had been filed
by third respondent herein. However, beneficiary had
filed an application in Execution Petition No.2116/2009
to transfer the amount which had been deposited by it
to Execution No.78/2012 and said application came to
be allowed by order dated 14.03.2016.
Writ petitioner filed an application under
Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in Execution Petition
No.2116/2009 as Objector with a prayer to transfer the
deposited amount by judgment debtor (second
respondent herein) and to hold a detailed enquiry into
the question of right over the property by virtue of
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2/2012. Said
application came to be resisted by third respondent
herein and executing Court by impugned order dated
14.03.2016 dismissed the application and being
aggrieved by the same, third respondent (Sri.
Muniyappa) filed W.P.No.17014/2016 in which
proceedings, petitioner herein had not been impleaded
as a party. This Court by order dated 16.01.2017 -
Annexure-L allowed the writ petition by quashing the
order of executing Court and directed the reference
Court to deposit the amount in any interest bearing
fixed deposit for a period of one year, during the
pendency of Misc. Petition No.34/2015 filed by third
respondent herein whereunder he had sought for setting
aside the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2012 passed
in O.S.NO.2/2012. Seeking recall/ review of order
dated 16.01.2017 passed in W.P.No.17014/2014-
Annexure-K, W.P.No.17569/2017 is filed. Whereas,
W.P.No.17568/2017 is filed for setting aside the order
dated 14.03.2016 -Annexure-J, whereunder executing
Court has dismissed the application filed by the writ
petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC.
When the matter came to be listed on
07.12.2017, petitioner and respondent filed a
compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. This
Court by order of even date has directed that both
parties should appear on 08.12.2017 before the
Registrar (Computers) who was requested to record the
compromise and file a report. Pursuant to same, report
came to be filed by the Registrar (Computers) and it is
stated that terms of the compromise was explained to
third respondent who is aged more than 80 years and
consent of his son was also obtained and both of them
were explained about terms of the compromise and they
have agreed to and consented to make payment of Rs.14
lakhs in favour of the petitioner from out of award
amount. Said report would also disclose that
proceedings have been video graphed and photographs
reflecting presence of the parties and their learned
Advocates is also appended to the said report. Registrar
(Computers) in order to satisfy himself about identity of
the parties is also said to have interacted with them and
having perused proof of their identity produced namely,
Aadhar card is to have verified the same. It is further
indicated in the report that terms of the compromise
petition have been accepted by the parties without any
force or coercion. In that view of the matter, this Court
finds that there is no impediment to accept the report.
Accordingly, report of Registrar (Computers) recording
the compromise between petitioner and third
respondent is hereby accepted.
Learned Government Advocate appearing for
respondent-1 submits that dispute in question is inter
se between petitioner and third respondent and as
such, he has no objection for accepting the compromise
petition. Second respondent is served and represented
by a counsel and second respondent cannot object to
this arrangement entered into between petitioner and
third respondent.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(1) Writ petition stands disposed of in
terms of the compromise petition and
in substitution to the impugned order,
it is hereby ordered that out of the
compensation amount deposited by
second respondent herein which is now
in fixed deposit, shall be called for by
the Executing Court adjudicating
Execution Petition No.2116/2009
forthwith and it shall disburse the
amount with accrued interest in the
following manner:
(i) A cheque shall be issued in the
name of petitioner for a sum of
Rs.14 lakhs by the Registry of the
Executing Court on proper
identification of petitioner (Sri. B.
Krishnappa).
(ii) Balance award amount (now in
Fixed deposit) with entire accrued
interest shall be disbursed by the
Executing Court in favour of
third respondent (Sri.
Muniyappa) by issuing a cheque
in his name forthwith on proper
identification.
(iii) Cheques shall be issued by the
Executing Court forthwith, at any
rate, within 15 days from the
date amount is received from the
Bank.
(iv) It is made clear that in the event
of Executing Court were to order
for payment of any additional
compensation and directing
second respondent - beneficiary
to deposit said amount, same
shall be disbursed between
petitioner and third respondent
equally on such deposit being
made by second respondent.