Karnataka High Court
Madhuvana House Building Co Operative ... vs Spl Lao And Assistant Commissioner on 21 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 24028 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 24082 OF 2022 (LA-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 24106 OF 2022 (GM-CPC),
WRIT PETITION NO. 24169 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
In WP No.24028/2022
Between:
Madhuvana House Building
Co-operative Society Limited,
Situated at No.23-A,
Palace Model House,
Indiranagar, Mysore-570010
Rep. by its President
Digitally signed D.T.Prakash
by C K LATHA
Registered under Co-operative
Location: HIGH
COURT OF Society Act, 1959.
KARNATAKA ...Petitioner
(By Sri S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate for
Smt. Mamata Gururao Kulkarni, Advocate)
And:
1. Spl LAO and Assistant Commissioner
Mysore Sub Division
Mysore.
Nanjappa
Since Deceased by LRS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
2. Puttananjamma
W/o. Nanjappa
Aged 89 years,
3. Parvathamma
D/o. Nanjappa
Aged 69 years,
Both are R/at Satanahally Grama
Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and
District-570019.
...Respondents
(By Sri V.Shivareddy, HCGP for R1;
Smt. Sona Vakkund, Advocate for C/R2 & R3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to-quash/set aside the order
dated 17.11.2022 passed in Ex.P.260/2009, Annexure-L
rejecting IA VI filed by petitioner u/s 47 r/w section 151 CPC,
on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru
and etc.,
In WP No. 24082/2022
Between:
Madhuvana House Building
Co-operative Society Limited,
Situated at No.23-A,
Palace Model House,
Indiranagar, Mysore,
Rep. by its President
D.T.Prakash
...Petitioner
(By Sri S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate for
Smt. Mamata Gururao Kulkarni, Advocate)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
And:
1. SPL LAO and Assistant Commissioner
Mysore Sub Division,
Mysore.
B.Mahadevappa
Since deceased by LRS.,
2. Rajamani
W/o. B.Mahadevappa,
Aged 77 years,
3. S.M.Paramesha
S/o. B.Mahadevappa,
Aged 64 years,
4. S.M.Dakshayani
D/o. B.Mahadevappa,
Aged 51 years,
5. S.M.Girish
S/o. B.Mahadevappa,
Aged 56 years,
Respondents No.2 to 5 are
R/of No.78, Sathagahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and
District.
Nanjappa
Since deceased by LRS.,
6. Puttananjamma
W/o. Nanjappa,
Aged 89 years,
7. Parvathamma
D/o. Nanjappa,
Aged 69 years,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
Respondents No.6 & 7 are
R/of Sathagalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District-570019
Mallikarjunappa
Since deceased by LRS
8. Shivamma
W/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 65 years,
9. Basavaraju
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 54 years,
10. Swamy
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 54 years,
11. Mahadeva
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 49 years,
12. Shivappa
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 45 years,
13. Shankara
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 42 years,
14. Murthy
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 39 years,
15. Mahadevamma
D/o Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 38 years,
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
16. Puttaraju
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 32 years,
Respondents No.8 to 16
R/of Sathagalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District-570019
...Respondents
(By Sri V.Shivareddy, HCGP for R1;
Smt. Sona Vakkund, Advocate for R2 to R16)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India, praying to-quash the (a) order dated
19.01.2005 in LAC 422/1998, (b) order dated 08.12.2004 in
LAC 423/1998 (c) order dated 08.12.2004 passed in LAC
424/1998 on the file of Principal Civil judge (Sr Div) Mysore
vide Annexure-E, E1 and E2 inviting reference under section
18(3)(b) by acting on the unauthorized memos filed by Ex-
ADGP, on a non-hearing date and etc.,
In WP No.24106/2022
Between:
Madhuvana House Building
Co-operative Society Limited,
Situated at No.23-A,
Palace Model House,
Indiranagar, Mysore
Rep. by its President
D.T.Prakash
...Petitioner
(By Sri S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate for
Smt. Mamata Gururao Kulkarni, Advocate)
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
And:
1. SPL LAO and Assistant Commissioner
Mysore Sub Division,
Mysore.
B.Mahadevappa
Since deceased by LRS.,
2. Rajamani
W/o. B.Mahadevappa,
Aged 77 years,
3. S.M.Paramesha
S/o. B.Mahadevappa,
Aged 64 years,
4. S.M.Dakshayani
D/o. B.Mahadevappa,
Aged 51 years,
5. S.M.Girish
S/o. B.Mahadevappa,
Aged 56 years,
Respondents No.2 to 5 are
R/of No.78, Satanahally Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and
District.
...Respondents
(By Sri V.Shivareddy, HCGP for R1;
Smt. Sona Vakkund, Advocate for R2 to R5)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to-quash/set aside the order
dated 17.11.2022 passed in Ex.P.259/2009, vide Annexure-M
rejecting IA VII filed by petitioner under section 47 r/w section
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
151 CPC, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Mysuru and etc.,
In WP No.24169/2022
Between:
Madhuvana House Building
Co-operative Society Limited,
Situated at No.23-A,
Palace Model House,
Indiranagar, Mysore-570010
Rep. by its President
D.T.Prakash
...Petitioner
(By Sri S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate for
Smt. Mamata Gururao Kulkarni, Advocate)
And:
1. SPL LAO and Assistant Commissioner
Mysore Sub Division,
Mysore.
Mallikarjunappa
Since deceased by LRS
2. Shivamma
W/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 65 years,
3. Basavaraju
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 54 years,
4. Swamy
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 54 years,
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
5. Mahadeva
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 49 years,
6. Shivappa
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 45 years,
7. Shankara
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 42 years,
8. Murthy
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 39 years,
9. Mahadevamma
D/o Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 38 years,
10. Puttaraju
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
Aged 32 years,
Respondents No.2 to 10
R/of Sathagalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District-570019
...Respondents
(By Sri V.Shivareddy, HCGP for R1;
Smt. Sona Vakkund, Advocate for R2 to R10)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated
17.11.2022 passed in Ex.P.267/2009, Annexure-L rejecting the
IA VI filed by petitioner under section 47 r/w section 151 of
CPC on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM.,
Mysuru and etc.,
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
These Writ Petitions having been heard & reserved on
08.06.2023, coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court
pronounced the following:
ORDER
All these writ petitions stand disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner in all these writ petitions is Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society, Mysuru ('society' for short). Persons, namely, 1) B.Mahadevappa, 2) Nanjappa and 3) Mallikarjunappa who are now deceased and represented by their legal representatives, are referred to as land owners for the sake of convenience. The material facts as stated by the society are as follows:
3. On 24.02.1990, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru issued a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) proposing to acquire 72 acres 12
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 guntas of land for the benefit of society. The notification was gazetted on 09.03.1990. Final notification under section 6 of the Act was gazetted on 04.04.1991 and the award was passed on 08.04.1993. It is stated that notice of award required to be given to the land owners under section 12(2) of the Act was served on the owners of land in Sy.Nos.25/1, 25/2 and 11 of Satenahalli on 08.09.1995. The land owners who were not satisfied with the award were supposed to have made an application to the acquiring authority within 90 days from the date of service of notice under section 12(2) of the Act. Since the notice was served on 08.09.1995, the land owners should have sought reference on or before expiry of 90 t h day i.e., 08.12.1995. But they submitted the application on 19.06.1997, more than two years after service of notice under section 12(2). The application was highly time barred. When the
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 acquiring authority did not make reference to the Civil Court, the land owners approached the Civil Court with applications under section 18(3)(b) of the Act on 15.07.1998 and in those applications they stated that they received the award amount on 28.04.1997, but did not mention the date on which the notice under section 12(2) of the Act was served on each of them. The applications under section 18(3)(b) were registered as LAC Nos. 422/1998, 423/1998 and 424/1998 and in all these applications the land owners impleaded the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Mysuru Sub-Division as the respondent, but did not implead the society as respondent No.2. Though the State i.e., the Land Acquisition Officer contested the applications under section 18(3)(b) on the ground of delay in seeking reference, on 24.11.2004 an Ex-Government Pleader filed memos in the court stating that the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 claimants received the award amount on 28.04.1997 and their applications filed on 19.06.1997 were within time and prayed for allowing the applications made under section 18(3)(b). The Principal Civil Judge, Mysuru, accepted the memos and finding that the cause of action for the applications arose on 28.04.1997, allowed them and directed the acquiring authority to make reference as sought by the land owners. The contention of the society is that the hearing date fixed by the court was actually 08.12.2004, the applications had not been listed before the court on 24.11.2004 and therefore an unauthorized person filed memos in the court for allowing the applications.
4. The society also contended that in the proceedings before the Civil Court pertaining to the applications under section 18(3)(b) of the Act, it was not made a party and in fact in the other
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 reference applications bearing LAC 379 to LAC 382/1998 and LAC 73/2010, the land owners were not made parties and the Civil Court had passed awards determining the market value. Those awards were called in question before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1995/2014 and Writ Appeal Nos. 2089-2091/2011 and Writ Petition No. 12155/2022 c/w Writ Petition No. 38307/2014. The Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals were allowed and the reference orders were quashed.
5. In the meanwhile, the land owners filed execution petitions against the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the society, and sought attachment of the money deposited in the State Huzur Treasury. In the execution petitions, the Special Land Acquisition Officer objected to the execution by submitting that former Government Pleader had unauthorisedly filed the memos dated 24.11.2004 and therefore the reference
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 applications which were barred by time did not clothe the Civil Court with jurisdiction to pass awards under section 23. The executing court rejected the objections. Some of the allottees of the society approached the High Court challenging the order of rejection of objections by filing a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the said order was questioned in a writ appeal although it was not maintainable. But the writ appeal was allowed on the sole ground that the allottees had no locus- standi to prefer writ petition. Then the society filed W.P.No.16273/2021 which was allowed on 06.09.2021 directing the executing court to consider the additional objection statement of the society in regard to want of jurisdiction of the executing court. The society filed detailed objections in the form of application under section 47 CPC pleading incurable defect in seeking
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 reference, default in making the society a party in the application for reference and fraud played by getting filed unauthorised memos for the purpose of allowing the applications. The decree holders i.e., the land owners did not file objections to the application under section 47 CPC. The court passed an order on 17.11.2022 rejecting the application with an observation that similar objections had been decided already. Hence, these writ petitions.
6. In W.P.No.24028/2022, the society has challenged the order dated 17.11.2022 in Ex.No.260/2009 on I.A.No.6 filed under section 47 read with section 151 CPC.
7. In W.P.No.24082/2022, the society has sought a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 19.1.2005 in LAC.No.422/1998, order dated 08.12.2004 in LAC No.423/1998 and order dated
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 8.12.2004 in LAC.No.424/1998 passed on applications under section 18(3)(b) of the Act.
8. Writ Petition Nos.24106/2022 and 24169/2022 are filed seeking to quash the order dated 17.11.2022 in Execution Petition Nos. 259/2009 and 267/2009 on the applications filed under section 47 of CPC and also for a writ of mandamus to terminate the execution proceedings.
9. Sri S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel, addressed argument in all the writ petitions on behalf of Smt. Mamata Gururao Kulkarni, learned counsel for the society. Learned counsel Smt. Sona Vakkund, argued for the legal representatives of the land owners and Sri V Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader, appeared on behalf of State. Smt. Mamata Gururao Kulkarni and Smt. Sona Vakkund filed synopsis of their arguments besides relying on a number of rulings
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 which will be referred to in the course of discussion; and from the points that they canvassed, the following points emanate for discussion :
(i) Was the society being a beneficiary a necessary or a proper party in the proceeding under section 18(3)(b) of the Act?
(ii) Could the issue of lack of jurisdiction with reference to limitation be raised in the execution proceeding under section 47 of Code of C ivil Procedure?
(iii)Assuming that W.A.Nos. 17183-17186/2011 and connected appeals were not maintainab le in view of law declared by full bench of this court in the case of Tammanna AND OTHERS vs Miss.
RENUKA AND OTH ERS (ILR 2009 Kar
1207) as argued by Sri. S.P.Shankar,
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
whether the order in W.P.No. 41455/2010 and connected matters has any bearing on executabity of awards?
(iv)Were the land owners estopped from seeking reference as they received the compensation without protest?
(v) Is the society estopped from urging the issues pertaining to non-impleadment of society in the proceeding under section 18(3)(b) of the Act, and the issues relating to limitation and fraud in the writ jurisdiction in view of dismissal of MFAs and withdrawal of W.P.Nos. 153-155/2010 filed by the society challenging the awards of the Civil Court passed in reference proceedings?
(vi)Whether writ petitions deserve to be allowed ? What is the order to be passed?
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 Point No. (i)
10. The argument of Sri S.P.Shankar was that the society for whose sake the lands were acquired should have been made a party in the reference proceeding under section 18(3)(b) of the Act; and without it being made a party, the awards passed by the Civil Court do not bind the society and the execution taken out against the society is not maintainable. He argued that in the reference applications LAC Nos. 379-382/1998 and LAC No. 73/2010 concerning acquisition of the lands in other survey numbers for the society under the same acquisition notification, the society had not been made a party, and the awards therein were called in question in W.P. No. 1995/2014, W.A.Nos. 2089-2091/2011 and W.P. No.38307/2014. They were allowed and references were quashed. He referred to section 20 of the Act to argue that the society falls within the ambit of
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 interested person which is to be notified by the court to enable it to participate in the proceeding. He also referred to section 50 (2) of the Act in order to emphasize that in any proceeding held before the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) or the Court, the beneficiary may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.
11. The argument of Smt. Sona Vakkund was that the society was made a party in the reference proceeding before the court, and it did participate and cross-examine the land owners. But she refuted the argument of Sri S.P.Shankar that the beneficiary should be made a party in a proceeding under section 18 (3)(b) of the Act while seeking a direction from the court to the Deputy Commissioner to make reference to the court.
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022
12. The argument thus advanced requires me to make clear the meaning of reference proceeding and deal with scope of sections 20 and 50 of the Act, before answering the point under discussion. In terms of section 18 (1), the land owner can make an application to the Deputy Commissioner to refer the matter to the court in case he is not satisfied with the award, and if the Deputy Commissioner does not refer within the time prescribed, the land owner can approach the Civil Court making an application under section 18 (3)(b) seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to refer the matter. This is a right available to the land owner. Once the Deputy Commissioner makes a reference, according to section 20 of the Act the court has to issue notice to (i) the applicant i.e., the land owner, (ii) all persons interested in the objection except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 receive payment of the compensation awarded and
(iii) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of compensation, the Collector i.e., the Deputy Commissioner. The word 'objection' in other words is the application that the land owner makes to the Deputy Commissioner for seeking reference. After issuance of notice as contemplated in Section 20, the court proceeds to determine the compensation having regard to guidelines prescribed in sections 23 and 24 of the Act and passes award according to section 26. Therefore it becomes clear that the meaning of 'Reference Proceeding' is that proceeding which takes place before the court after the Deputy Commissioner refers the matter to the court for passing an award according to section 26 of the Act; any proceeding for consideration of an application made either under section 18(1) or 18(3)(b) of the Act, is not a reference proceeding;
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 it is just a proceeding to decide whether matter is to be sent to court or not for the purpose of determining the compensation. The Deputy Commissioner cannot deny to make reference to the court, and at the stage of making reference on an application made before him under section 18 (1) all that he has to ascertain is whether the application has been made within time. And during the proceedings under section 18(3) (b) before the court, the Deputy Commissioner may bring it to the notice of court that no application had been made to him under section 18 (1), or if the application had been filed, it was time barred and hence he cannot be directed to make reference. The enquiry at this stage is very limited to this extent; neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the court proceeds to determine the compensation at the stage of making reference. For this reason participation of the beneficiary at pre-reference
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 stage is not at all necessary; beneficiary need not be heard on the application made for seeking reference. Presence of the beneficiary is necessary only when the court holds or conducts enquiry for determining the compensation amount for passing award under section 26 of the Act.
13. The society has produced the orders of this court in W.P.No.1995/2014 and W.A.Nos.2089-
2091/2011 as Annexures F and G in W.P.No.24082/2022. Referring to these orders Sri. S.P.Shankar argued that Coordinate Bench of this court as also the Division Bench held that the beneficiary society should have been arrayed as a party and heard. But Annexures F and G depict a factual position altogether different from the cases on hand. No doubt, the lands involved in W.P.No.1995/2014 and W.A.Nos.2089-2091/2011 were acquired for the sake of society, but the grievance of the society in W.P.No.1995/2014 was
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 that it had not been served with notice in the proceeding for determination of compensation by the civil court; award was passed by the civil court enhancing the compensation to Rs.5,80,201/- by placing the society exparte; and for this reason the Coordinate Bench set aside the award and remanded the case to the civil court.
14. In W.A.Nos.2089-2091/2011, the facts pleaded there show that society was not made a party in reference proceeding, i.e., for determination of compensation by the civil court. The Division Bench has clearly noted in para 5 of the judgment that it is a statutory requirement that the beneficiary of the acquisition who would ultimately be liable for payment of compensation is required to be heard before the claim for enhancement of compensation is considered. Thus neither the order in W.P.No.1995/2014 nor the judgment in W.A.Nos.2089-2091/2011 is
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 helpful to sustain the argument of Sri. S.P.Shankar.
15. Since Sri. S.P.Shankar referred to Section 50(2) of the Act, and relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (dead) by LRs (AIR 1995 SC 724), it is to be examined whether the argument of Sri. S.P.Shankar with reference to section 50(2) of the Act has relevance or not. The purport of section 50(1) is that whenever acquisition proceeding is initiated at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of a company, the incidental charges of acquisition shall be defrayed from that fund. Sub-section (2) of section 50 states that the company or the local authority can participate before Deputy Commissioner or the court for the purpose of determination of compensation. That means a company or local
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 authority has a right to participate at the stage of determining the compensation only. Here the society can be placed at par with company or local authority, for the lands in different survey numbers were acquired for its benefit, and undoubtedly it can claim right of participation before the Deputy Commissioner or the Acquiring Authority when the compensation is determined at the initial stage, or the court when the compensation is to be determined by it. But the language of section 50 does not indicate any right of participation being available to beneficiary at the time of making reference by the Deputy Commissioner to the court, or when the court gives a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make reference to it.
16. In the case of U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, what the Supreme Court has by referring to section 50(2) of the Act, held is the
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 local authority has a right to appear and adduce evidence in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) and the reference court for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. This ruling has made the position of law so clear that beneficiary is to be heard only for the purpose of determining the compensation, and not when the land owner seeks reference to court under section 18(1) or 18(3)(b) of the Act.
17. Another ruling that Sri. S.P.Shankar has relied on is in the case of Neelagangabai and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (AIR 1990 SC 1321). Here also the observation is that the corporation for whose benefit the land was acquired was entitled to be heard before the reference could be determined, i.e., for computation of compensation. In para 3 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below:
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 "3. Admittedly the land was acquired for the purpose of the respondent-Corporation and the burden of payment of the compensation is on the Corporation. In this background the High Court has held that it was mandatory for the court of reference to have caused a notice served on the respondent- Corporation before proceeding to determine the compensation claim. Since no notice was given to the respondent Corporation and it was thus deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the court, the judgment rendered in the reference case was illegal and not binding on the Corporation. We are in agreement with this view.
Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of Karnataka reads as follows:
"20. Service of notice.--The Court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the reference, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely:
(a) the Deputy Commissioner;
(b) all persons interested in the reference; and
(c) if the acquisition is not made for Government, the person or authority for whom it is made."
- 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 In view of the clear language used in clause (c) of s. 20, mentioned above, there cannot be any doubt that the respondent-Corporation was entitled to be heard before the reference could be determined. The High Court has also relied upon the decision in Himalayan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by Lrs., [1980] 3 SCR 235, wherein the expression "person interested" was interpreted liberally so as to include an authority like the Corporation in the present case, but in view of the further provision specifically mentioning in clause (c) the authority for whom the acquisition is made it is not necessary to interpret clause (b) of s. 20 in the present appeal. We accordingly confirm the direction of the High Court as contained in the impugned judgment that the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli, should re-open the proceedings in the L.A. Case No. 64 of 1979 and decide the matter afresh after giving the Corporation a chance to lead its evidence on the question of valuation. Since the matter is an old one, the respondent-Corporation is hereby directed to appear in the said case within 3 weeks from today without waiting for any further notice. The appeal is dismissed with costs."
18. In the case on hand, the society was a party before the court in the reference proceeding
- 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 for determination of compensation. It did participate and cross examine the land owners; this is undisputed fact. That means society was heard before enhancing the compensation. If it had not been made a party in the proceeding before the court on an application under section 18(3)(b) of the Act, it cannot be made a ground to stall the execution proceedings. The presence of beneficiary at the stage of making reference is not at all necessary as at that stage no decision as to determination of compensation is taken. Therefore point (i) is answered in negative. Point No.(ii) :
19. Before answering this point, it may be noted here that the society, when it participated before the court in the reference proceeding (i.e., for determination of compensation), did not contend about the question of limitation. The
- 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 cross examination of the land owner shows no question relating to limitation being put to him. It is not as though question of limitation cannot be urged in the proceeding before the court for determination of compensation; it can be.
20. Sri. S.P.Shankar argued that according to Karnataka Amendment to section 18(2) of the Act, the time limit for making an application to the Deputy Commissioner is 90 days from the date of service of notice from the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act, and if the Deputy Commissioner fails to make reference to the Court within 90 days from the date of receiving the application, the land owner can apply to the court for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference to it. And limitation for making an application to the court under section 18(3)(b) is three years after expiry of 90 days from the date of application for making
- 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 reference as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman (AIR 2006 SC 24).
21. Learned counsel argued that once notice under section 12(2) of the Act was served on the land owners on 8.9.1995, they ought to have sought reference by making an application to the Deputy Commissioner within 90 days, but they made the application on 19.6.1997, that means the application was time barred. Referring to application dated 15.7.1998 filed by land owners under section 18(3)(b), Sri. S.P.Shankar argued that in that application, it is not stated as to on what date they made the application to Deputy Commissioner seeking reference; they simply stated that they received the award amount on 28.4.1997; but whatever may be the case, the proceeding under section 18(3)(b) was bad in as much as the application under section 18(1) was
- 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 belatedly made on 19.6.1997, after expiry of 90 days from 8.9.1995.
22. Sri. S.P.Shankar highlighted another point that the Land Acquisition Officer represented by the Government Pleader had in fact contended before the court that the application was time barred, but very surprisingly an unauthorized person filed a memo on 24.11.2004 in the office of the court on behalf of Land Acquisition Officer stating that the claimant received the award amount on 29.4.1997, and since the application under section 18 (1) was filed on 19.6.1997, the petition was within time. With reference to this memo, Sri. S.P.Shankar argued that the court should not have entertained the memo which was not signed by the then District Government Pleader or Additional District Government Pleader to allow the application under section 18(3)(b) and give a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make
- 35 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 reference. He also submitted that 24.11.2004 was not the hearing date fixed by the court; the actual hearing date was 8.12.2004; and even the case had not been advanced to 24.11.2004. His argument, therefore, was that the land owners played fraud on the court; they abused the process of court and law; and for this reason the society was entitled to raise the question of limitation in the execution. His argument was, since the reference was hit by limitation, the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the reference for determination of compensation. And since this aspect affected the jurisdiction of the court, the award passed by the court was null and void and unexecutable. Question as to non executability of a decree or award can be raised in the execution proceeding under section 47 of CPC. To garner support for his argument, he placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases
- 36 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 of Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others (AIR 1954 SC 340) and Sunder Dass Vs. Ram Parkas (AIR 1977 SC 1201).
23. Supporting the argument of Sri. S.P.Shankar, Sri. V. Shiva Reddy, the High Court Government Pleader submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the Deputy Commissioner had not authorized the District Government Pleader to file a memo dated 24.11.2004 conceding that the application under section 18(1) of the Act was within time, and this was the reason for an application under section 47 of CPC being filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the execution proceeding, but that application was erroneously dismissed.
24. The argument of Smt. Sona Vakkund was that the land owners did not receive notice under section 12(2) of the Act; it was not enough if the
- 37 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 notice was merely served, it should be accompanied by a copy of the award or otherwise it was no service; the burden is on the Land Acquisition Officer to prove that notice under section 12(2) was served on the land owners; that the contention about service of notice on 8.9.1995 was not taken in reference proceeding and since it was taken for the first time in the execution proceeding it cannot be entertained. Her further submissions were that the petitions filed under section 18(3)(b) of the Act numbered LAC Nos. 422 to 424/1998 were allowed on the basis of memos that were filed by Government Counsel on 24.11.2004, and thereafter the society participated in reference proceedings, LAC Nos.293 to 295/2005 without any demur and cross examined the landowners - claimants, but at that time not even a suggestion was given to them about service of notice under section 12(2) of the Act. The Land
- 38 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 Acquisition Officer filed MFAs 3140-3142/2009 and the society filed MFA Nos. 1482/2009, 1483/2009 and 1484/2009 before this court challenging the awards passed by the court and in those appeals, the grounds relating to limitation and fraud were not urged. The appeals were dismissed. The awards attained finality and they are to be executed. Any attempt by the society to stop execution of awards on the pretext of limitation amounts to abuse of process of law.
25. Smt. Sona Vakkund relied on certain decisions of the Supreme Court throwing light on the position of law as to on whom burden of proof lies if question of limitation arises and the manner of service required under section 12(2) of the Act. In Bhagwan Das and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2010) 3 SCC 545], it is held that,
- 39 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 "30. When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the person interested was present either in person or through his representative when the award was made, or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the Mahazar/ Panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had
- 40 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of the state or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so".
(emphasis supplied)
26. Another ruling of the Supreme Court is Premji Nathu Vs. State of Gujarat and Another [(2012) 5 SCC 250] in which the decision in Bhagawan Das was referred to hold as below:
"21. A careful reading of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the application filed by the appellant under Section 18(1) shows that the notice issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) was served upon him on 22.2.1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified copy of the award and filed application dated 8.4.1985 for making a reference to the Court. This implies that copy of the
- 41 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 award had not been sent to the appellant along with the notice and without that he could not have effectively made an application for seeking reference.
22. On behalf of the State Government, no evidence was produced before the Reference Court to show that copy of the award was sent to the appellant along with the notice. Unfortunately, while deciding issue No.3, this aspect has been totally ignored by the Reference Court which mechanically concluded that the application filed on 8.4.1985 was beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b). The learned Single Judge of the High Court also committed serious error by approving the view taken by the Reference Court, albeit without considering the fact that the notice issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) was not accompanied by a copy of the award which was essential for effective exercise of right vested in the appellant to seek reference under Section 18(1)."
(emphasis supplied)
27. Sri. S.P.Shankar has sought to garner support for his argument from a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Hasnuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1979) 2
- 42 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 SCC 572] where it is held that the reference court can examine the competency of reference in relation to limitation; the paras extracted below enunciate the principle.
"25. Every tribunal of limited jurisdiction is not only entitled but bound to determine whether the matter in which it is asked to exercise its jurisdiction comes within the limits of its special jurisdiction and whether the jurisdiction of such tribunal is dependent on the existence of certain facts or circumstances. Its obvious duty is to see that these facts and circumstances exist to invest it with jurisdiction, and where a tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the statute that creates it and that statute also defines the conditions under which the tribunal can function, it goes without saying that before that tribunal assumes jurisdiction in a matter, it must be satisfied that the conditions requisite for its acquiring seisin of that matter have in fact arisen. As observed by the Privy Council in Nusserwanjee Pestonjee v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan, wherever jurisdiction is given to a court by an Act of Parliament and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained in that Act it is a universal
- 43 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 principle that these terms must be complied with, in order to create and raise the jurisdiction for if they be not complied with the jurisdiction does not arise.
26. If an application is made which is not within time, the Collector will not have the power to make a reference. In order to determine the limits of his own power, it is clear that the Collector will have to decide whether the application presented by the claimant is or is not within time, and satisfies the conditions laid down in section 18. Even if a reference is wrongly made by the Collector the court will still have to determine the validity of the reference because the very jurisdiction of the court to hear a reference depends on a proper reference being made under section 18, and if the reference is not proper, there is no jurisdiction in the court to hear the reference. It follows that it is the duty of the court to see that the statutory conditions laid down in section 18 have been complied with, and it is not debarred from satisfying itself that the reference which it is called upon to hear is a valid reference. It is only a valid reference which gives jurisdiction to the court, and, therefore, the court has to ask itself the question whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the reference.
- 44 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022
27. In deciding the question of jurisdiction in a case of reference under section 18 by the Collector to the court, the court is certainly not acting as a court of appeal; it is only discharging the elementary duty of satisfying itself that a reference which it is called upon to decide is a valid and proper reference according to the provisions of the Act under which it is made. That is a basic and preliminary duty which no tribunal can possibly avoid. The court has, therefore, jurisdiction to decide whether the reference was made beyond the period prescribed by the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act, and if it finds that it was so made, decline to answer reference."
(emphasis supplied)
28. Therefore the conspectus of the above referred decision is if question of limitation arises in a proceeding under section 18(3)(b) of the Act while it is enough for the claimant or the land owner (interested persons) to state the date on which he came to know of the award having received the notice under section 12(2) of the Act
- 45 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 or in any other way, the burden lies on the Deputy Commissioner or the acquiring authority to prove that notice under section 12(2) of the Act was served on the interested persons along with a copy of the award. Mere service of notice without a copy is no service of notice. Only after going through the award, the land owner or the claimant can decide whether he has to seek reference or not, and this is the reason behind the requirement to furnish copy of the award. It is not that the court cannot examine the issue of limitation after reference is made; the court has ample power to examine whether or not the reference is valid; it can examine the limitation aspect as well.
29. In the case on hand, no doubt the society has produced copy of the notice issued to the land owners under section 12(2) of the Act. On the back of the notice, a signature and a thumb impression purportedly of land owners are there.
- 46 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 The service of notice is disputed by the land owners; whatever may be the contention of the land owners, if according to the society as also the acquiring authority, notices were duly served with copy of the award on the land owners nothing prevented them from contending about it before the court in the proceeding under section 18(3) (b) of the Act or in the reference proceeding. In these writ petitions a ground has been taken that an unauthorized person filed a memo conceding that reference was within time and the court should not have acted upon it. Sri. S.P.Shankar has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kirti and Another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [(2021) 2 SCC 166] in which it is held that concession in law made in this regard by either counsel cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangement contrary to law. Certainly, courts cannot act on concessions of parties or
- 47 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 advocates while deciding the question of limitation or maintainability of a suit or proceeding. But this contention should have been urged at the earliest point of time or in the appeals filed after the awards were passed. Whenever mixed question of law and facts are involved, no finding as to limitation can be given in a writ proceeding.
30. The next aspect to be answered is, if the court passed an award in a reference which, according to society was time barred, did the award become nullity as the court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain time barred reference. The reference court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain a time barred reference and thereby the awards became nullity and unexecutable, was the point argued by Sri. S.P.Shankar. He has sought support for his argument from two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kiran Singh (supra) and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Others
- 48 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 vs Director, Health Services, Haryana and Others [(2013) 10 SCC 136].
31. In Kiran Singh, the question as to jurisdiction of the court arose in the context of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, and while dwelling on it, the Supreme Court laid down a ratio that :
"6. ........... It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings......."
32. Following Kiran Singh's case and decisions in other cases, the Supreme Court in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat reiterated the principle as extracted below:
"9. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred
- 49 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the root of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/ inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetrate and perpetuate defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213)."
33. The settled law is, a decree or award passed by a court or tribunal which lacks inherent jurisdiction to decide a case is a nullity, and if such a decree or award is put into execution its non-executability can be raised in the execution
- 50 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 proceeding in terms of section 47 of CPC. What is the meaning of inherent lack of jurisdiction? If a court entertains a time barred suit and passes a decree, can it be said that the court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit and thereby the decree is a nullity? Answers to these questions may be given in the following way.
34. Inherent lack of jurisdiction means the court or the tribunal should not have been vested with jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter brought before it. To illustrate, section 9 of CPC clearly states that the court shall have jurisdiction to try the suits of civil nature and they cannot try suits cognizance of which is either expressly or impliedly barred. There are certain statutes which exclude the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of certain matters. For instance Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
- 51 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 has excluded the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of matters which can be decided by Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Section 61 of Land Revenue Act bars the jurisdiction of civil court in respect of matters enumerated therein. Like that there are statutes which have excluded the jurisdiction of civil courts. If the courts entertain suits in respect of these matters and grant a decree, such decrees are unexecutable as the decrees are null and void because the civil courts lack inherent jurisdiction. If the court entertains a suit in respect of which it has no territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction and grants a decree, such a decree does not become unexecutable; though the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit for want of territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the court in such a case lacks inherent jurisdiction as its jurisdiction is not
- 52 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 expressly or impliedly bared in terms of section 9 of CPC, and the executability of the decree passed by such a court cannot be questioned in appeal or revision according to section 21 of CPC unless the objection to that effect was taken at the earliest point of time and there has been a consequent failure of justice. Apposite to the context, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Budhia Swain and Others Vs. Gopinath Deb and others
- [(1999) 4 SCC 396] that :
"9. A distinction has to be drawn between lack of jurisdiction and a mere error in exercise of jurisdiction. The former strikes at the very root of the exercise and want of jurisdiction may vitiate the proceedings rendering them and the orders passed therein a nullity. A mere error in exercise of jurisdiction does not vitiate the legality and validity of the proceedings and the order passed thereon unless set aside in the manner known to law by laying a challenge subject to the law of limitation. In Hira Lal Patni Vs. Sri Kali Nath AIR 1962 SC 199, it was held:-
- 53 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 ".......The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings only on the ground that the court which passed the decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction in the sense that it could not have seisin of the case because the subject matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit had been instituted or decree passed, or some such other ground which could have the effect of rendering the court entirely lacking in jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the suit or over the parties to it."
35. But if decree is granted in a time barred suit, it cannot be said that the decree becomes unexecutable. Section 3 of the Limitation Act states that the suit or appeal or application shall be dismissed if it is time barred. Here the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit or any application, but it cannot grant a decree because of lapse of limitation period. In case if the court entertains a time barred suit, the court does not lose its inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it is only an error in exercising jurisdiction. Such
- 54 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 a decree can be questioned in an appeal or revision petition. This is how the distinction can be made between inherent lack of jurisdiction of a court and error in exercising jurisdiction.
36. In the case on hand, according to the society the reference petition could not have been decided by the court as the reference itself was bad because application seeking reference was made after lapse of limitation. As discussed above, question of limitation could have been contended in reference proceeding, it was not taken. After the awards were passed, the Spl. LAO as also the society preferred appeals before this court and they were all dismissed. Therefore the awards attained finality. Assuming for argument sake that the reference was time barred, yet the award came to be passed; and akin to a situation like this the Supreme Court in the case of
- 55 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 Ittyavira Mathai Vs. Varkey Varkey and Another [ AIR 1964 SC 907] has held as below:
"8. The first point raised by Mr. Paikedy for the appellant is that the decree in O. S. No. 59 of 1093 obtained by Anantha Iyer and his brother in the suit on the hypothecation bond executed by Ittiyavira in favour of Ramalinga Iyer was a nullity because the suit was barred by time. Even assuming that the suit was barred by time, it is difficult to appreciate the contention of learned counsel that the decree can be treated as a nullity and ignored in subsequent litigation. If the suit was barred by time and yet, the court decreed it, the court would be committing an illegality and therefore the aggrieved party would be entitled to have the decree set aside by preferring an appeal against it. But it is well settled that a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit and over the parties thereto, though bound to decide right may decide wrong; and that even though it decided wrong it would not be doing something which it had no jurisdiction to do. It had the jurisdiction over the subject-matter and it had the jurisdiction over the party and, therefore, merely because it made an error in deciding a vital issue in the suit, it cannot be said that it has acted beyond
- 56 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 its jurisdiction. As has often been said, courts have jurisdiction to decide right or to decide wrong and even though they decide wrong, the decrees rendered by them cannot be treated as nullities. Learned counsel, however, referred us to the decision of the Privy Council in Maqbul Ahmed v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh [AIR 1935 PC 85], and contended that since the court is bound under the provisions of section 3 of the Limitation Act to ascertain for itself whether the suit before it was within time, it would act without jurisdiction if it fails to do so. All that the decision relied upon says is that section 3 of the Limitation Act is peremptory and that it is the duty of the court to take notice of this provision and give effect to it even though the point of limitation is not referred to in the pleadings. The privy council has not said that where the court fails to perform its duty, it acts without jurisdiction. If it fails to do its duty, it merely makes an error of law and an error of law can be corrected only in the manner laid down in the Civil Procedure Code. If the party aggrieved does not take appropriate steps to have that error corrected, the erroneous decree will hold good and will not be open to challenge on the basis of being a nullity."
- 57 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022
37. In the case of Budhia Swain (supra), it is held as below:
"13. None of the two pleas was raised by the appellants in their pleadings. None of the two was urged before O.E.A. Collector. Therefore there was no occasion to consider those pleas. Still we may make it clear that none of the two pleas could have been a ground for recalling the order which was otherwise within the jurisdiction conferred on the O.E.A. Collector. Though it is a disputed question of fact, as noted by the High Court, that the application by the respondent no.1 was filed within the prescribed time or not. Nevertheless, we are very clear in our mind that an order made on an application filed beyond the time prescribed for filing the same may be an illegal order but is certainly not an order passed without jurisdiction."
38. Therefore applying the above principle to the case on hand, it can be very clearly stated that the awards, even if they were passed in time barred reference proceedings, did not become nullity and unexecutable, and consequently executability of the awards cannot be questioned
- 58 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 under section 47 of CPC. Thus point No.(ii) is answered in negative.
Point No.(iii)
39. This is a hypothetical question, but requires to be answered. Writ petitions 41455/2010 and connected petitions were filed by a few allottees of the society challenging the orders dated 08.12.2004 passed by the court calling upon the Special Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference and the award dated 19.01.2005 passed by the court enhancing the compensation. The society has not produced the copy of the writ petition or the order therein, but as can be made out from the order in W.A.Nos.17183-17186/2011 produced by the land owners as Annexure R10 in W.P.No.24082/2022, the grounds urged in W.P.No.41455/2010 and connected matters were
(i) non impleadent of society (ii) fraud played on
- 59 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 the court and (iii) lapse of limitation period. The writ petitions were allowed. The order in writ petitions were challenged in the writ appeals which were allowed holding that the writ petitions were not maintainable as they had been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the civil court and secondly, fraud being a disputed question of fact, writ jurisdiction could not have been invoked.
40. The argument of Sri S.P.Shankar was that writ petitions had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and intra court appeal under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act was not maintainable in view of judgment of Full Bench in the case of Tammanna. Special Leave Petition preferred against the judgment in Writ Appeals no doubt stood dismissed; but dismissal of Special Leave Petition did not validate the judgment in Writ Appeals, as the Division Bench
- 60 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Appeals. And judgments in Writ Appeals did not operate as res-judicata to hold that awards became final.
41. The argument of Sri S.P.Shankar appears to be technically plausible, but not acceptable. As can be made out from the synopsis filed by the counsel for the society and the facts culled out in the judgment in W.A.Nos.17183-17186/2011, one of the pleas was non-impleadment of beneficiary in reference proceedings. May be under the impression that the beneficiary had not been made a party in reference proceeding i.e., in a proceeding for determination of compensation, learned single judge might have allowed the writ petitions. But the fact remains that the beneficiary society was a party in reference proceedings. I have held while discussing point No.(i) that society was not a necessary or proper party in proceeding under section 18(3)(b) of the
- 61 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 Act. If it was the plea of the society in W.P.No.41455/2010 and connected cases that it had not been made a party in the reference proceeding, it was nothing but misleading the writ court. Any order passed under misconception of fact cannot be taken advantage by the society, that too when the Special Leave Petition filed by it was dismissed. Therefore the order in W.P.41455/2010 and connected matters has no impact on executabity of awards.
Point No.(iv)
42. Sri. S.P. Shankar argued that unless the land owners receive the compensation under protest, they cannot seek reference to court and in this regard he relied on certain rulings.
43. Smt. Sona Vakkund argued that the land owners did protest for the award, and the moment they sought reference, it implied that they were
- 62 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 not agreeable for the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
44. The argument of Sri. S.P.Shankar is not acceptable, and there is no need to refer to the decisions relied upon by him because the society has clearly stated in the writ petition that the land owners received the compensation under protest. Having stated so, argument contrary to pleading cannot be entertained.
Point No.(v)
45. The awards passed by the court were challenged by Special Land Acquisition Officer in MFA Nos.3140-3142/2009. These appeals were dismissed. The society also filed the appeals, MFA Nos.1482-1484/2009, and they were dismissed for default.
- 63 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022
46. In the Execution Petitions 259/2009, 260/2009 and 267/2009 filed by the land owners pursuant to awards enhancing the compensation, the executing court issued arrest warrants against the society as the execution of awards had not been stayed in MFAs 1482-1484/2009. The society challenged the order of issuance of warrants in this court by filing Writ Petitions registered as W.P.Nos.153-155/2010 taking the ground of fraud. As has been stated in the statement of objections filed by Smt. Sona Vakkund on behalf of land owners, the society withdrew the writ petitions seeking liberty to urge all the contentions taken there in MFAs 1482-1484/2009. After dismissal of the appeals, the allottees of sites from the society filed writ petitions i.e., W.P.41455/2010 and connected matters, which came to be allowed, and the orders therein were set aside in
- 64 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 W.A.Nos.17183-17186/2011. These are undisputed facts.
47. The argument of Smt. Sona Vakkund was that if according to the society the application under section 18(3)(b) was time barred; that the reference was bad in as much as the society was not a party in section 18(3)(b) proceeding, and that the land owners colluded and played fraud by abusing the process of court in getting filed a memo dated 24.11.2004 by an unauthorized person, the contentions in that regard ought to have been raised in the proceeding or in the MFAs filed by it. Then in W.P.153-155/2010, the society contended about fraud, but it withdrew the writ petitions seeking liberty to urge all the contentions taken there in MFAs 1482-1484/2009. But those appeals were dismissed for default. The society thus having failed to urge those contentions in the appropriate proceedings cannot urge those
- 65 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 contentions again in the instant writ petitions as they are hit by principles of res-judicata.
48. The reply of Sri. S.P.Shankar was that whenever a decree or award is passed by a court which had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit or proceeding, rule of res judicata is not applicable as the decree or award is a nullity. Sri S.P.Shankar also submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had contended about limitation in section 18(3)(b) proceeding.
49. The contention as regards the society being not made a party is already discussed, there is no need to answer it again. The issue in regard to limitation is also discussed, however if it is further elaborated, if the Special Land Acquisition Officer had contended in his statement of objections that the application for seeking reference was time barred, that could have been
- 66 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 seriously pressed in that very proceeding or in the reference proceeding. When the witnesses on behalf of land owners adduced evidence in support of their claim, they could have been cross examined to establish the fact that the reference was time barred. If there was collusion between the land owners and somebody resulting in filing of a memo by an unauthorized person, it is not understandable as to why the District Government Pleader did not bring it to the notice of the court that he had not filed the memo and therefore it should be rejected. The reference proceeding was contested both by Special Land Acquisition Officer and the society without any demur regarding limitation and fraud. In the appeals filed by the society those grounds were not urged. In the appeals filed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, the society was one of the respondents, and in those appeals, the society could have objected to
- 67 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 the awards on those grounds even without filing cross objection in accordance with Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC. The effect of this is the society rendered itself estopped from raising all those grounds or issues to stall the execution proceedings by filing application under section 47 CPC. Explanation IV to section 11 of CPC is applicable to a context like this. Smt. Sona Vakkund has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Chander More and Others Vs. Lieutenant Governor and Others (AIR 2014 SC 2669) where, it is held, "20. Reference may also be made to the Constitution Bench decision in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Assn. v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 where this Court once again reiterated that the principles of constructive res judicata apply not only to what is actually adjudicated or determined in a case but every other matter which the parties
- 68 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 might and ought to have litigated or which was incidental to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation. This Court observed:
"an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to or essentially connected with subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the CPC was applied to writ case. We, accordingly hold that the writ case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata."
(emphasis supplied)
50. Then with regard to fraud, it is to be stated that it is a question of fact; it must be pleaded disclosing specifically the particulars as envisaged in Order 6 Rule 4 of CPC; and it must be
- 69 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 proved also. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Ranganayakamma Vs. K.S.Prakash (AIR 2005 KAR 426) has held:
"47. A Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in K. S. Mariyappa v. K. T. Siddaling a Shetty, following the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court in Subhas Chandra (supra); Afsar Shaikh (supra) and Vishwavidyalaya's case (supra), held that-Where general allegations that an act or deed is vitiated b y fraud and collusion, is no plea of fraud and collusion.
Material particulars such as when and how and who, and in what manner and for that purpose fraud was practiced and who colluded with whom and in what manner and with what object or purpose etc., must be averred."
51. But Sri. S.P. Shankar placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) by LRs and Others vs Mohd. Hanifa by L.Rs and Others (AIR 1976 SC 1569) argued that rule of res
- 70 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 judicata would not come to the aid of the land owners as society was not a party in section 18(3)(b) proceedings. Smt. Sona Vakkund also referred to same judgment to point out that society was a party in reference proceedings. As it is already made clear as to how the rule of constructive res-judicata binds the society, the case of Syed Mohd. Salie does not help the society. Therefore point No.(v) is answered in affirmative.
Point No.(vi):
52. In view of discussion on points No. (i) to
(v) all the four writ petitions filed by the society cannot be allowed. The executing court rightly dismissed IA.No.VI filed under section 47 read with section 151 of CPC, noticing that such an application filed by the Government or Special Land Acquisition Officer in the execution
- 71 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 proceedings had stood dismissed by order dated 20.7.2021. The Government did not challenge that order. In the statement of objections filed by Smt. Sona Vakkund, it is stated that the Government did not challenge the order of dismissal of application under section 47 of CPC, but the society challenged it in W.P.16273/2021, and in view of order in the said writ petition produced at annexure J, the society filed an application under section 47 of CPC, which was dismissed by the executing court by passing the order impugned in the instant writ petitions. The reasons given by the executing court for dismissing the application are extracted below:
"14. The above mentioned memo is filed on 24.11.2004 and the specific contention of the JDR No.2 is that they have not filed any objection to execution petition and they are not party in LAC proceedings. On perusal of the order sheet dated 14.08.2015 specifically disclose that JDR
- 72 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 No.2 filed the objection and on 08.01.2016 the JDR No.2 filed additional objection. Hence, the contention of the JDR No.2 that JDR No.2 has no opportunity to file objection in the execution petition is far away from the truth. Another contention is that the reference application and hearing on reference application fraud has played by the ADGP appearing for the respondent (SLO). On perusal of the writ petitions, MFA and writ appeals the JDR No.2 not taken any contention of fraud and the JDR No.2 in all writ petitions appeared and contested the writ petitions and not taken any contention of aspect of fraud. Since, the JDR No.2 preferred SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court later withdrawn. Said aspects is not denied by the JDR No.2. Since the award is passed in the year 2008 and contention raised by the JDR No.2 is not filed objection to execution petition and not party to any of the proceedings and also fraud has played in reference application is not in sound and force. With above observations sequence of writ petition and writ appeal, the JDR No.2 is a party and also the JDR No.2 challenged the legality and correctness of award passed
- 73 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 in LAC No.293 to 295/2005 is null and void. With these observations, certainly there is no any merits in the IA No.VI. Resultantly, I proceed to answer Point No.1 in the Negative."
53. I do not think that the above reasons suffer from legal infirmity. In the appeals the society did not take all the grounds on which the present writ petitions are founded. Therefore the society could not have raised the same in the execution. It appears that when the society filed W.P.16273/2021, it misled the coordinate bench to pass an order permitting it to file statement of objections in execution proceedings. The submissions made in W.P.16273/2021 are necessary to be extracted here to demonstrate as to how the co-ordinate bench was misled.
"2. Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned senior Counsel is heard on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned senior Counsel sub mits that the petitioner is
- 74 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 constrained to approach this Court impugning the rejection of the application filed by the first respondent under Section 47 of the CPC as follows:
[a] The sub ject lands are notified for the benefit of the p etitioner, and the petitioner being a beneficiary of the acq uisition, should have been heard in the reference proceedings. But the petitioner is not even made a party in the reference p roceedings and only the first respondent was arrayed as a party in such p roceedings;
[b] The petitioner is implead ed in the execution proceedings for the first time and that too without seeking any relief against the petitioner. I n the executing proceedings, the second respondent has sought for the relief of attachment only against the first respondent. Nevertheless, the executing Court has issued warrant for attachment of movables belonging to the petitioner;
[c] The petitioner is entitled to question the initiation of enforcement p roceedings against the petitioner not only on the ground that the enforcement p roceedings would not lie against the petitioner without
- 75 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 the petitioner being impleaded in the reference and that the entire proceedings are vitiated by fraud resulting in miscarriage of justice."
(emphasis supplied)
54. The above submissions were incorrect, the coordinate bench was misled to believe that the society was not a party in reference proceedings for determination of compensation; it was in fact respondent No.2 and participated in the entire proceedings. That was the reason why society was arrayed as Judgment Debtor No.2 in execution proceedings.
55. Be that as it may, the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Government made an application under section 47 of CPC, it was dismissed. The society also objected to execution by making application under section 47 of CPC. Aptly applicable to a situation like this, the
- 76 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 Supreme Court has held in the case of R.P.A.Valliammal vs R.Palanichami Nadar and Others [AIR 1997 SC 1996] that "2. .......... Section 47 postulates that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Explanation 1 added thereto by Amendment Act, 1976 postulates that for the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed, are parties to the suit. The opportunity to object to executability of the decree could be taken only once and repeated applications appear to be unwarranted.................
(emphasis supplied)
56. Therefore the application filed by the society under section 47 of CPC was rightly
- 77 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 dismissed and I do not find any infirmity in the order.
57. Before passing the order of dismissal of these writ petitions, it is to be noted here that the society requires to be subjected to costs for not allowing the land owners to reap the fruits of the award. It is pertinent to refer to Annexures-R3 and R4 produced by the land owners in W.P.24082/2022. Annexure-R3 is a sale deed executed by the society in favour of one of its members namely Prabhakar. Condition No.7 of the sale deed reads as follows:
"7. The Vendor hereby declares that the Sale of the Schedule Property executed in terms of these presents shall be subject to the condition, that in the event of the Vendor being called upon to pay any charges or any claims of escalation of a charge already paid, of whatsoever nature, to any authorities like MUDA, KUWS & DB, KPTCL subsequent to the execution of this Deed,
- 78 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 the Purchaser shall pay and reimburse the Vendor of an amount proportionate to the Schedule property upon the Vend or notifying the purchaser of any such demands."
58. Annexure-R4 is a copy of the letter addressed to the purchaser Prabhakar bringing to his notice that the reference petitions filed by the land owners had been allowed and the compensation had been enhanced, and therefore he was directed to deposit the excess sale consideration that he was supposed to pay in proportion to the dimension of his site or the plot and get the katha registered.
59. The reason for referring to Annexures-R3 and R4 is to demonstrate the conduct of the society in avoiding to make payment of the compensation amount determined by the court. Though the award was passed by the court on 19.1.2005, till now it appears that the land owners
- 79 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 are not paid money that they are entitled to. Moreover in W.P.Nos.14478-14483/2017 the order of which is produced at Annexure-R14, while sustaining the stay of the execution as it affected the interest of one Muralidhar who was the plaintiff in O.S.29/2016, it was directed that the rest of the execution proceeding should go on expeditiously. The original land owners died and now they are represented by their legal representatives. Despite the fact that society was a party in W.P.Nos.14478-14483/2017, yet W.P.Nos. 24106/2022 and 24169/2022 are filed seeking to terminate the execution proceedings. Therefore all these aspects clearly indicate the intention of the society to defeat the awards. This being the conduct of the society, if costs are not imposed it is nothing but travesty of justice.
60. In view of the above discussion, I come to conclusion that all the four writ petitions are
- 80 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 devoid of merits. For any reason execution proceedings cannot be terminated. The reliefs sought for by the society cannot be granted. Therefore all the writ petitions are to be dismissed with costs of Rs.1,50,000/- each.
61. Before concluding, it is made clear that I have not referred to some of the rulings cited by either side counsel as I have found them not relevant for discussion.
62. From the above discussion, the following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) All the writ petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs.1,50,000/- each.
(ii) (a) In W.P.24028/2022, the legal
representatives of Nanjappa are
entitled to costs of Rs.1,50,000/-.
- 81 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439
WP No. 24028 of 2022
C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022
WP No. 24106 of 2022
WP No. 24169 of 2022
(b) In W.P.24082/2022, the legal
representatives of deceased land
owners, B.Mahadevappa, Nanjappa and Mallikarjunappa shall share costs of Rs.1,50,000/- equally.
(c) In W.P.24106/2022, the legal representatives of B.Mahadevappa are entitled to costs of Rs.1,50,000/-.
(d) In W.P.24169/2022, the legal representatives of Mallikarjunappa are entitled to costs of Rs.1,50,000/-.
(iii) The society is hereby directed to deposit the costs in the executing court forthwith, failing which the legal representatives of land owners/decree holders shall realize the costs by including it in their respective execution petitions which are pending and there is no need to file a separate execution petition to
- 82 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25439 WP No. 24028 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24082 of 2022 WP No. 24106 of 2022 WP No. 24169 of 2022 realize the costs awarded by this court in these writ petitions.
(iv) The executing court is hereby directed to proceed further in the execution petitions without any delay. In view of disposal of the above writ petitions, the interim order granted in W.P.No.24082/2022 stands vacated.
Sd/-
JUDGE CKL/SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1