Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Deputy Chief Engineer vs V. Mruthyunjaya S/O Channappa on 20 September, 2024

Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad

Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad

                                             -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC-D:13457
                                                     WP No. 105527 of 2018




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                       DHARWAD BENCH
                          DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
                           WRIT PETITION NO.105527 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
                   GAUGE CONVERSION, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
                   TIRUPATHI, NOW REP. BY DEPUTY CHIEF
                   ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION, NEAR RAILWAY
                   STATION, DAVANGERE-577001.
                                                          -    PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   V. MRUTHYUNJAYA S/O. CHANNAPPA,
                        AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O: YASHAWANTHANAGAR,
                        SANDUR-583119, DIST: BALLARY.

Digitally signed
                   2.   THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
by VINAYAKA B V
Location: HIGH
                        CUM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                        BALLARY-583101.
DHARWAD
BENCH                                                   -     RESPONDENTS
DHARWAD
Date: 2024.10.01   (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R2;
14:52:35 +0530
                   NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

                        THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
                   AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,
                   QUASH    THE   IMPUGNED    ORDER   DATED  31.03.2018
                   (ANNEXURE-"G") PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL
                   SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BALLARY IN EX.P.
                   NO.105/2014 & ETC.

                         THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
                   IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
                   UNDER:
                               -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-D:13457
                                      WP No. 105527 of 2018




                         ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) This writ petition is by the beneficiary who has to pay compensation in terms of the award by the competent Court. The petitioner is arrayed as a judgment debtor in the execution petition in E.P. No. 105/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Ballari, [for short, 'the Executing Court'] commenced by the respondent-decree holder for enforcement of such award. The petitioner is aggrieved by the executing Court's order dated 31.03.2018, and the executing Court by this order has directed its office to issue attachment warrant of movables against the petitioner.

2. The proceedings before the impugned order indicate that the executing Court has called upon its office to file a report on the amount that would be payable by the petitioner and that the petitioner has also filed objections to the report that is filed by the office. On 17.03.2018, the executing Court, considering the objections, has opined that -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13457 WP No. 105527 of 2018 the petitioner has not furnished details of the payments made. Later, the executing Court has issued impugned directions for issuance of attachment warrant of movables because the petitioner's counsel has not filed the details of the amounts paid.

3. Sri Mallikarjun S. Hiremath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the counter filed by the petitioner and the memo of calculation filed by the respondent as per Annexures-A and C to the writ petition, submits that even the respondent has admitted that a sum of Rs.29,68,000/- is paid on 21.10.2013 and 13.08.2014 [Rs.29,24,652/- + Rs.43,348/-] and notwithstanding these details on record and that without taking into account these details, the attachment warrant is issued.

4. This Court must opine on perusal of records that there is material to indicate deposit as canvassed by Sri Mallikarjun S. Hiremath but the same has not been considered by the executing Court's office while filing a report on the calculation and the executing Court -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:13457 WP No. 105527 of 2018 has, only because the details were not furnished on behalf of the petitioner, proceeded to pass the directions for attachment warrant of movables. The impugned order cannot be sustained because of the lack of application of mind and therefore there must be interference but to restore the proceedings for re-calculation and for expeditious disposal of the execution petition. Hence, the following order.

ORDER The petition is allowed in part quashing the executing Court's impugned order dated 31.03.2018 and restoring the proceedings to the executing Court to consider the report filed on calculation in the light of the admitted fact that a sum of Rs.28,68,000/- has been deposited.

Sd/-

(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE BVV Ct: VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6