THE COMMISSIONER v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAO SHIVAMOGGA
WP/2710/2023 · 2026-08-31
Vijaykumar A Patil
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 38403 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 38403 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010065822023 NC: 2026:KHC:47224 W.P. No.2802/2023 C/W W.P. No.2710/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.2802/2023 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.2710/2023 (GM-CPC)
IN W.P. No.2802/2023:
BETWEEN:
1.
THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADV., FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADV.,)
AND:
1.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAO SHIVAMOGGA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA.
2.
SRI. BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE SHAMARAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O. KARGAL ROAD NEAR BHOGAMALLESHWARA TEMPLE BIRURU, KADURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALORE DIST-577116.
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010065822023 NC: 2026:KHC:47224 W.P. No.2802/2023 C/W W.P. No.2710/2023
3.
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSHRAJ DESHMUKH, AGA FOR R1 & R3 SRI. M.B. GAJAN GANAPATHY, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 17/12/2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA ON I.A.
NO.2 IN EX.NO.33/2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-D & ETC.
IN W.P. NO.2710/2023:
BETWEEN:
1.
THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADV., FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADV.,)
AND:
1.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577301.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010065822023 NC: 2026:KHC:47224 W.P. No.2802/2023 C/W W.P. No.2710/2023
2.
3.
SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA W/O LATE ANNAPPA HEGDE D/O RAMGA IYANGAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O. CHAMARAJAPETE OPP. DISH GURU OFFICE SAGARA – 577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSHRAJ DESHMUKH, AGA FOR R1 & R3 SRI. M.B. GAGAN GANAPATHY, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA ON I.A.NO.2 IN EX.NO.35/2018, VIDE ANNX- D & ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 4 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010065822023 NC: 2026:KHC:47224 W.P. No.2802/2023 C/W W.P. No.2710/2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
W.P.No.2802/2023 is filed challenging the order dated 17.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.2 in Ex.No.33/2018; W.P.No.2710/2023 is filed challenging the order dated 17.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.2 in Ex.No.35/2018, both orders are passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Shivamogga (for short, ‘the Executing Court’). 2. Heard Sri.B.S.Shrinivas, learned counsel for Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Santoshraj Deshmukh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3; Sri.M.B.Gagan Ganapathy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in respect of both the petitions and perused the material available on record. 3. The respondent No.2 in the respective petitions filed execution petition in Ex.No.33/2018 and Ex.No.35/2018 respectively, against the respondent No.1
- 5 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010065822023 NC: 2026:KHC:47224 W.P. No.2802/2023 C/W W.P. No.2710/2023
seeking to execute the judgment and award in LAC Nos.2/2011 and 4/2011 respectively. In the execution proceedings, the respondent No.1 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, 'the CPC') seeking to implead the petitioner herein as judgment debtor No.2. The Executing Court, under the impugned orders, allowed the said applications by recording the reasons that the petitioner herein is the beneficiary of the acquisition and hence, is a necessary and proper party to the said proceedings. 4. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that the beneficiary of acquisition is required to be arrayed as a party in the reference proceedings filed by the claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said view gains support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010065822023 NC: 2026:KHC:47224 W.P. No.2802/2023 C/W W.P. No.2710/2023
case of Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and others1. 5. It is to be noticed that the present applications for impleadment are filed by the respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner to implead the beneficiary as party to the execution proceedings and not in the reference proceedings. Admittedly, there is no enforceable judgment and award/decree against the petitioner herein. Hence, without the petitioner being arrayed as a party in the reference proceedings, the petitioner cannot be straight way arrayed as a judgment debtor in the execution proceedings and seeks to execute the award of the reference Court. 6.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda v. R.M.Patwa and Another2 observed that how the High Court has erred in converting the execution
1 (1995) 1 SCC 221 2 (1996) 2 SCC 468
- 7 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010065822023 NC: 2026:KHC:47224 W.P. No.2802/2023 C/W W.P. No.2710/2023
proceedings into case and counter case between the decree holder and stranger to the execution proceedings. 7. Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the Executing Court has committed a grave error in allowing the applications for impleadment of the petitioner as party in the execution proceedings as
judgment debtor No.2 since the petitioner herein was not a party in the reference proceedings. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petitions are allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 17.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.2 in Ex.No.33/2018; the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.2 in Ex.No.35/2018, both the orders passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Shivamogga, are set aside.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010065822023 NC: 2026:KHC:47224 W.P. No.2802/2023 C/W W.P. No.2710/2023
Consequently, application in I.A.No.2 filed by respondent No.1/judgment debtor for impleadment stands rejected.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31