- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38050 WP No. 25444 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25444 OF 2016 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: THE CHIEF ENGINEER REHABILITATION DIVISION, VARAHI PROJECT, KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, LINGANAMAKKI, SAGAR TALUK-577421 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKHILESH BHAT M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADYUMNA L.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SHIMOGA-577422 2. CHANDRASHEKHARA S/O PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, 3. MANJAPPA S/O PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, 4. NAGARAJA S/O PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, 5. CHANNAPPA GOWDA ALIAS SHESHAPPA S/O PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38050 WP No. 25444 of 2016 5(a) SMT.KOMALA W/O LATE SRI. CHANNAPPA GOWDA 5(b) MS. VANITHA D/O SRI. CHANNAPPA GOWDA 5(c) SRI.MANJUNATHA S/O SRI. CHANNAPPA GOWDA RESPONDENTS 5(a) TO 5(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF SULUGODU VILLAGE YEDUR POST, HOSANAGARA TALUQ, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577 452. 6. KRISHNAMURTHY ALIAS KRISHNAPPA S/O. PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, 7. PARAMESHWARA S/O PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, 8. JAYALAXMI D/O PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 8 ALL RESIDENTS OF ULUTHIGA, YADURU, NAGARA HOBLI, HOSANAGARA TALUK-577428 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.5 I.E. RESPONDENT NOS.5(A) TO 5(C); NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3, 4 AND 6 TO 8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH, SET ASIDE AND DECLARE VOID THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.10.2015 PASSED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38050 WP No. 25444 of 2016 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) SAGAR IN EX NO.88/1997 ARISING OUT OF LAC NO.211/1984 AND MFA NO.2509/85 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE INSTANT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar in Ex.P.No.88/1997 arising out of LAC No.211/1984 and MFA No.2509/1985 by which, it directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,215/- along with upto date interest. 2. The land belonging to the private respondents was acquired for the benefit of petitioner. The proceedings for enhancement of compensation were referred to the reference Court in LAC No.211/1984 which passed an award, which was challenged before this Court in MFA No.2509/1985. 3. During the pendency of MFA No.2509/1985, an execution petition was filed in Ex.P.No.271/1986 which was dismissed for default on 31.07.1986. Thereafter, this Court in MFA No.2509/1985 reduced the compensation to a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38050 WP No. 25444 of 2016 Rs.8,500/- per acre of wet land and Rs.48,800/- per acre of garden land. The land losers filed Ex.P.No.74/1993 to execute the award as modified in MFA No.2509/1985. Thereafter another execution petition was filed in Ex.P.No.88/1997 to execute the award as modified in MFA No.2509/1985. 4. In the meanwhile, one of the land losers expired leaving behind her legal heirs. However, they did not take part in the proceedings. Therefore, on 29.05.1999, Ex.P. No.88/1997 was dismissed for default. On 22.07.2011, the legal heirs filed a petition for restoration of Ex.P No.88/1997. The petitioner herein was not arrayed as a party in either execution petition or in MFA No.2509/1985. On 06.09.2012, Ex.P.No.88/1997 was restored in Civil Miscellaneous No.25/2012. After restoration, the respondent No.1 herein deposited Rs.44,559/- and Rs.6,349/-, on 16.01.2013 and 01.02.2013 respectively, towards part satisfaction of the sums due. The same was released to the concerned respondents on 19.08.2013 and 05.10.2013. After more than 25 years since the award was modified in MFA No. 2509/1985, the respondent Nos.2 to 8 herein sought to execute - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38050 WP No. 25444 of 2016 the award by impleading the petitioner in Ex.P.88/1997. The said application was allowed and the petitioner was included as a judgment debtor, even though the petitioner was not party in MFA No.2509/1985. Thereafter, the Executing Court allowed the execution petition No.88/1997 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,215/- to the respondent Nos.2 to 8 herein which allegedly was the amount due under the award passed in the LAC No.211/1984 which was modified in MFA No.2509/1985. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is therefore before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was not a party either before the reference Court in LAC No.211/1984 or before the appellate Court in MFA No.2509/2005. Therefore, the award passed by the reference Court in LAC No.211/1984 or the order passed by this Court in MFA No.2509/1985 was not binding upon it. He also contends that even in the execution petition, the petitioner was not made as a party. It is only after nearly 25 years from the date of the award passed in MFA No.2509/1985, steps were taken to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38050 WP No. 25444 of 2016 implead the petitioner and liability was fastened upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,215/-. He contends that it was incumbent upon the land losers to implead beneficiary as a party to the proceedings and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the executing Court is not binding upon it and not enforceable against it. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional government Advocate submits that it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to pay the compensation as determined in MFA No.2509/1985. He contends that the beneficiary has no say in the matter of determining compensation as it is only between the respondent No.1-State as well as private respondents. He contends that in either case, even if the petitioner was not arrayed as a party in execution petition or in LAC 211/1984 or in MFA No.2509/1985, the petitioner is under continuous obligation to ensure that the compensation as determined is paid. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed by the Court is just and proper and the petitioner is bound to pay the compensation as the beneficiary of the acquisition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38050 WP No. 25444 of 2016 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. 9. A perusal of the events as extracted by the petitioner indeed shows that there was some amount of lethargy in the respondent Nos.2 to 8 in making their claim. It is evident that the respondent Nos.2 to 8 after the death of their predecessors did not take any steps to come on record and seek for execution of the award passed by this Court in MFA No.2509/1985. However, the respondents No. 2 to 8 allowed E.P. No.88/1997 to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, they took steps for restoration of the execution petition. The execution petition was restored, which was not questioned either by the respondents No.1 or by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was impleaded as one of the judgment debtors. The executing Court after taking into account the amount reduced by this Court in MFA No.2509/1985, calculated the compensation payable and directed the petitioner to pay the same. While doing so, the executing Court fairly did not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38050 WP No. 25444 of 2016 award any interest from the date of the dismissal of Ex.P.No.88/1997 till the year 2013 when it was restored. 10. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the beneficiary is bound to pay the compensation as determined. Therefore, even if the petitioner was not arrayed as a party in LAC No.211/1984 and MFA No. 2509/1985, in matters concerning the determination of compensation, the petitioner has no locus- standi to oppose the compensation claimed by the land losers. It is a dispute between the land losers and the acquiring authority, namely the respondent No.1 and therefore, the petitioner continued to be under obligation to pay the compensation as awarded and enforced in execution proceedings. This Court does not see any error in the Executing Court exercising jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to pay the compensation as determined by this Court in MFA No.2509/1994. 11. Hence, the petition lacks merits and is dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38050 WP No. 25444 of 2016 12. Any amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Executing Court for release to the appropriate person in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33