1

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6996-6997 OF 2021

Bangalore Development Authority …Appellant

Versus
N. Nanjappa and another …Respondents

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at

Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos. 37943-37944/2015 (GM-CPC), by which

the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions preferred by the

original applicant – Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’)

and has confirmed the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing

the applications filed by BDA under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in Execution

Case No. 2713/2012 filed by respondent No.1 herein (decree holder)

against respondent No.2 herein (judgment debtor), the BDA has

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.12.06

preferred the present appeals.

17:25:19 IST
Reason:
 2

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:

That land admeasuring 01 acre 15 guntas (disputed land in

question) in Survey No. 12/2 of Geddalahalli Village was acquired by

BDA in the year 1977 under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development

Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1976 Act’). 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. According to the appellant – BDA, 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. Thereafter, a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued on 01.04.1982 evidencing the

factum of taking possession of the acquired land. It appears that after a

period of approximately 17 years and after vesting of the acquired land

in question in favour of BDA, 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. That

respondent no.1 herein thereafter filed a civil suit being O.S. No.

3797/2000 against respondent no.2 herein before the City Civil Court,
 3

Bangalore for ejectment. It is to be noted that in the said suit, the

appellant-BDA was not arrayed as a party.

2.1 The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2008

dismissed the said suit. However, by judgment and order dated

13.06.2012, the High Court allowed the Regular First Appeal No.

468/2008 filed by respondent no.1 herein and consequently decreed the

suit filed by respondent no.1 herein. Respondent No.2 herein challenged

the judgment and order passed by the High Court before this Court by

way of special leave petition, which came to be dismissed by this Court

vide order dated 11.02.2013. Thereafter, respondent no.1 herein –

decree holder filed Execution Petition being E.P.No. 2713/2012. It

appears that having come to know of the judgment and decree passed

by the High Court allowing the appeal, the appellant-BDA filed a suit

being O.S. No. 2070/2013 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore,

seeking a declaration that the lease agreement between respondent

no.1 herein-decree holder and respondent no.2 herein – judgment

debtor vide agreement of lease dated 16.08.1999 in respect of the suit

schedule property is null and void and also prayed for permanent

injunction to restrain respondent no.1 herein-original landowner–decree

holder from executing the decree passed in O.S. No. 3797/2000.

 4

2.2 BDA also filed two applications under Order XXI Rule 97 read with

Section 151 CPC in the execution proceedings for impleadment and for

deferring the execution proceedings till disposal of suit filed by it being

O.S. No. 2070/2013. The aforesaid two applications filed by BDA came

to be rejected by the Executing Court vide common order dated

29.01.2015 mainly on the ground that there was no material on record to

show that pursuant to the acquisition, the BDA had taken possession of

the said land and therefore the BDA cannot obstruct or object to the

execution of the decree passed by the competent Court.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order passed

by the Executing Court rejecting the applications filed by BDA under

Order XXI Rule 97 r/w Rule 101 CPC, the obstructor-BDA filed two writ

petitions before the High Court being Writ Petition Nos. 37943-

37944/2015. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has

dismissed the aforesaid two writ petitions. Hence, the present appeals

are at the instance of the obstructor-BDA.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-BDA has

vehemently submitted that while rejecting the applications filed by BDA

to implead BDA in the execution petition as obstructor, both, the High

Court as well as the learned Executing Court have misread and

 5

misinterpreted Order XXI Rule 97 r/w Rule 101 CPC.

3.1 It is submitted that for raising the obstruction/objection to the

decree which is sought to be executed, the obstructor need not be in

possession and it is enough that the obstructor claims title with respect

to the said property. Though in the present case it is the case of BDA

that possession was handed over by Government to BDA – Engineering

Section.

3.2 It is submitted that in the present case as such the property/land in

question has already been acquired by BDA and even the award was

also declared way back on 12.06.1981 and even according to BDA the

possession of the land in question was already taken over and was

handed over to the Engineering Section and thereafter even notification

under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was also issued

vesting the suit land absolutely with BDA and thereafter collusively

and/or illegally respondent no.1 herein entered into agreement of lease

with respondent no.2 herein.

3.3 It is submitted that as such in the present case even the

substantive suit filed by BDA being O.S. No. 2070/2013 to declare the

agreement of lease between the decree holder and judgment debtor is

null and void is pending. It is submitted that therefore the Executing

 6

Court ought to have allowed the impleadment application filed by BDA,

who claims the title on the basis of the acquisition of the land under the

1976 Act.

3.4 It is further submitted that Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 101 CPC

are to be read together. It is submitted that as per Order XXI Rule 101,

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 or their representatives, and relevant

to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the

Executing Court dealing with the applications. It is further submitted that

while raising an obstruction/objection to the execution of the decree, the

obstructor need not prove his/its possession but when it claims right, title

or interest in the suit property, the same is required to be determined,

decided and/or adjudicated upon by the Executing Court in such an

application.

3.5 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present

appeals.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have

tried to support the orders passed by the High Court as well as the

Executing Court. It is submitted that according to the decree holder –

 7

original landowner, the actual possession of the land in question has not

been taken over by BDA and the possession of the land in question is

with the judgment debtor – respondent no.2 herein, which is required to

be handed over to respondent no.1 herein – decree holder, pursuant to

the judgment passed by the High Court. It is submitted that the

Executing Court rightly rejected the applications filed by BDA under

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. It is submitted that as rightly observed by the

Executing Court and confirmed by the High Court that though the land in

question might have been acquired, unless and until the possession by

the obstructionist is established and proved, such an application under

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC is liable to be dismissed and the same was

rightly dismissed by the Executing Court and is rightly confirmed by the

High Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

length.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the BDA is claiming

right, title or interest in the land in question being acquired under the

provisions of the 1976 Act. It is required to be noted that the lease

agreement between the decree holder and the judgment debtor is

subsequent to the acquisition of the suit land. Therefore, it is the case

on behalf of the appellant – BDA that such a transaction is null and void
 8

once the suit land for which the lease agreement was executed was

acquired under the provisions of the 1976 Act. Moreover, the award was

also declared and a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land

Acquisition Act evidencing taking over possession of the land by BDA

was also published. Therefore, when the appellant-BDA which has

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 and when the BDA claims right, title or

interest in the suit property, such obstruction/objection was required to

be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court while considering the

application/obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97 or Rule 99 CPC. At this

stage, Order XXI Rule 97 and Order XXI Rule 101 CPC are required to

be referred to and which read as under:

“97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property – (1)

Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or
the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is
resisted or obstructed by any person obtaining possession of the property,
he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance
or obstruction.
2. Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall
proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the
provisions herein contained.
101. Question to be determined – All questions (including questions
relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties
to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their
representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall
be determined by the Court dealing with the application, and not by a
separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in
force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions.”
 9

5.1 Therefore, 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.

6. In the instant case, 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

the present case, a substantive suit being O.S. No. 2070/2013 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
 10

adjudicated upon by the Executing Court.

6.1 In view of the above, the order passed by the Executing Court

dismissing the applications filed by the BDA for impleadment in the

execution proceedings and/or dismissing the obstruction application, and

the impugned order passed by the High Court, are unsustainable and the

same deserve to be quashed and set aside.

7. Accordingly, the present appeals succeed. The impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 21.03.2016

dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein – BDA and order

dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Executing Court dismissing the

application filed by BDA for impleadment as well as dismissing

obstruction application are hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant

is permitted to be impleaded in the execution proceedings. The

Executing Court is directed to implead the appellant herein – 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
 11

CPC. The aforesaid shall be completed within a period of six months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8. The instant appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. However,

in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to

costs.

…………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

DECEMBER 06, 2021. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]