As per Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, all questions including questions relating to the 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. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court before Hon’ble Justice M.R. SHAH & Hon’ble Justice B.V. NAGARATHNA in the matter of Bangalore Development Authority vs N. Nanjappa and Anr [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6996-6997 OF 2021].
The facts arising to the case were that a land admeasuring 01 acres 15 guntas was acquired by BDA in the year 1977 under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. A final notification came to be issued in respect of the said land vide notification dated 02.08.1978 under Section 19 of the 1976 Act. Award came to be passed vide award dated 12.06.1981 awarding compensation of Rs.17,393.75. It was the contention of the BDA that the possession of the acquired land was taken over by the Government as per the mahazar dated 16.07.1981 and was handed over to the Engineering Section of BDA. But, respondent no.1 herein entered into an agreement of lease with respondent no.2 herein in respect of part of the land in question vide agreement of lease dated 16.08.1999 and now was appealed in court for his ejectment and the possession of the suit property. So, the BDA BDA filed a suit before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seeking a declaration that the lease agreement between respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 is null & void and also prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain respondent no.1 from executing the decree passed in O.S. No. 3797/2000. But the same was rejected first by the city civil court and then by the court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “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 and the question relating to the right, title or interest of the BDA in the suit property was required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court.”
Finally, in view of the above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 21.03.2016 & order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Executing Court was quashed and set aside. Further, BDA was permitted to be impleaded in the execution proceedings.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur