LexBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus N. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 351 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. N. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal Nos. 6996-6997 of 2021) DECEMBER 06, 2021 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.XXI r.97 r/w s.151 CPC – Resistance/obstruction to possession of immovable property – Case of appellant-BDA was that the land in question was acquired by it under the provisions of 1976 Act and award was declared and notification for taking over possession was also published – Seventeen years after vesting of acquired land in favour of BDA, an agreement of lease in respect of part of said land was entered into by respondent no.1 as lessor with respondent no.2 – Respondent no.1 thereafter filed suit for ejectment of respondent no.2 in which BDA was not arrayed as party – Suit was decreed and attained finality – Respondent no.1 (decree holder) filed execution petition – Having come to know of the decree, BDA filed separate suit seeking declaration that the lease agreement between respondent no.1 and no.2 was null and void and also prayed for permanent injunction to restrain respondent no.1 from executing decree – BDA also filed two applications u/Or.XXI r.97 r/w s.151 in the execution proceedings till disposal of separate suit filed by it – Executing court rejected the applications – Writ petitions filed by BDA were also dismissed – Hence instant appeals – Held: As per Or.XXI r.101, all questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application u/Or.XXI r.97 or r.99 and relevant to the adjudication of the application shall have to be determined by the Court dealing with the application – For that a separate suit is not required to be filed – Appellant-BDA had submitted the obstruction/objection in the execution proceedings filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor with respect to suit land which was acquired by BDA – When the BDA claimed right, title or interest in the suit [2021] 9 S.C.R. 351 351 A B C D E F G H 352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R. property, such obstruction/objection was required to be adjudicated upon by the executing court while considering the application/ obstruction u/Or.XXI r.97 or r.99 – Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. As per Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, all questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Order XXI rule 97 or rule 99 CPC and relevant to the adjudication of the application shall have to be determined by the Court dealing with the application. For that a separate suit is not required to be filed. Order XXI Rule 97 is with respect to resistance/obstruction to possession of immovable property. [Para 5.1][357-F-G] 2. It is the specific case of the appellant – BDA that pursuant to the acquisition of the land in question, the BDA has become the absolute owner and the said land is vested in the BDA and possession was already taken over by the BDA and the land was handed over to the Engineering Section. Therefore, the applications submitted by BDA for impleadment in the execution proceedings and the obstruction against handing over the possession to the decree holder were required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court by impleading the BDA as a party to the execution proceedings. Though, in this case, a substantive suit filed by the BDA against the decree holder and the judgment debtor to declare the lease agreement as null and void is pending, irrespective of the same, considering Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, the question relating to right, title or interest of the BDA in the suit property was required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court. The appellant is permitted to be impleaded in the execution proceedings. The Executing Court is directed to implead the appellant – BDA in the execution petition and thereafter adjudicate upon the obstruction/objection raised by BDA including the question relating to right, title or interest claimed by BDA in the suit land on the basis of the acquisition of the suit property/land acquired under the provisions of the 1976 Act, in exercise of powers under Order XXI rule 97 r/w Rule 101 CPC. [Paras 6, 7][357-G-H; 358-A-C; 358-E-F] A B C D E F G H 353 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6996- 6997 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2016 of the High Court of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.