THE I-ION'BLE MR JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 9"" day of November, 2Q} ~
BEFORE:
Writ Petition No. 9550 ofO2Q079TV[LA-KLf_1_DBC: ~. "
BETWEEN
I.
ANrD'T'--. ~ 'V
BY SECRETARY
THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
E{ARNATAKAINDUs*If1?;{AL'--. ,
AREAS DEVELOPMENT. BOARD
PRESENTLYAAT 11 FLOOR '
KHENYBUILDING '
1s'rCRoss,€3tANDH':NACAR "
BANGz}.LCRE5.60 Q09.' V V »
CHIEF ExE'CN;11vE.,§CEE1CER,,§;
EXEc'u'm;tE MEMBER ' _
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL . .
AI?3EA-- DEvELQpMEN'p:3oAreD
NO; J 4/2, R' P I3UILDING<
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD}
BANGALORE -- "560. 001'
PETITIONERS
[By 1\v/f§"CA}owhar Unnisa, Adv. for
'M/_s. Suraj Law Associates, Advs.]
V T' _ SRI I3'--YELLA'REDDY
.sINCE BEAT) BY HIS ms'
JAYARAMA REDDY
* AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
2. SR1 Y ASHOK REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
LATE 13 YELLA REDDY
R/AT NO.1 / 1, "ANU'THA"
III CROSS, 31s'r MAIN ROAD
BTM LAYOUT, II STAGE » _ 'I U.
BANGALORE -- 560 068. _.--RESPQjN.DE:sITsV
{By Sri H R Keshava Reddy, for R1' * _ it
THIS PETITION Is FILED UNDER .'2.26- or '
THE CONS'I'E'i'UTION OF' INDIA,»EP_RAY1Nf3 T0 cA1,L;'.;I?ovR'*REcORI;Sp
AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER _2S.0°7.2oo7j 'AI\ID1""I'3.o'1.2oo'9',
PASSED IN Ex.cASE NO. 147/2o01"'o_N THE FILE OF HON'BLE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE)? [-SR.DIsI.}._ "Ls--AjR(;§AI,ORI: RURAL DISTRICT
VIDE ANNEXURE -- A 3: A1" PASS?
THIS PE*m_ToI_\I cOIIzIII\IC§;"pON._RoR'FLIRTIIER ORDERS. THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE I'I"oI,:;O_VvI"N'cI.:.~ '
R
This petition Special land acquisition officer
and {chief officer of Karnataka Industrial Area
."V"DeV'VeV1.Op"r:rIeVnt_ Boaricljwho are before this court in this writ
I '-~petitipon.V':"'-cvoinplaining about the Order passed by the
1ea_irIed__"j'utige of the executing court viz., Civil Judge {Sr
Bangalore rural district, wherein the petitioners
in the position of judgment debtors.
A/
3
2. Respondents 1 and 2 being legal heirs of one B Yeila
Reddy, whose land, it appears, the petitioners–hoai*d. had
acquired for some purported public purpose-._
compensate the owner in terms of
passed by the land acquisition::,:4off_lcer
modified in further referencerror ‘appeal,
orders of the reference in appeal
etc., in such proceedin,;.<;:._:é..A he
3. The present Writ’ background of
such proceed.ing’s__-_pendirig before the executing court at
the own.er” on the complaint that the
petitioners” not satisfied the award, in its
entirety,
;p.etit_ion is presented on the premise that while
thehWe*rit epetjitiioners have satisfied the award in its entirety,
‘g_due to some incorrect or wrong calculations as presented
A the decree holders and though opposed by the
V’ petitioners before the executing court, the learned judge of
r/
4
the executing court’ having not bestowed attention to this
aspect, but having. nevertheless, issued for
attachment of movabies of the
petitioners complaining they have no “tort
course of action against such
attachment warrant againsgi-gnoiralolesg
debtors, have presented petition for the
following relief: A d it it
Callwfor a writ of
ce~i’tiarari {org -~an’y -otheri Writ/Order/
1′ Direction, aside the Order dated
M ‘2s.”o7;:,2oo,7’i and «..1t51.01.2009, passed in
‘EX;Cas°e No.14?/’2001 on the file of the
= ‘Hon”‘.’§ie,_” .Pr’i;r1c§’i-pal Civil Judge (Senior
pg “Divi3ion.),’. “‘-.B”ar’igal0re Rural District
” v.[_An.nex_ur’e_s” {til & A1); and pass,
other writ, order or orders
V including the award of costs as this
._’W_’Hon_’ble Court deems fit in the
circiirrzstances of the case,
S. Submission of Ms Gowhar Unnisa, learned counsel
.]:for,__ thetlpetitioners is that the learned judge of the
.l ‘executing court is not at all inclined to look into the memo
V
5
of calculations filed on behalf of the writ petitioners /
judgment debtors; that unless the memo of calculations as
had been filed by the writ petitioners/is
also looked into in comparison with the forthby
the decree holders and if at all is-.uz1tin2ate1y
the some more amount issstill du’e._to
and only when the writ debtors had
even then failed to fiitékey then alone
there can be sorne of Warrant to
attach judgment debtors,
but not theldyycdrrectness or otherwise of
the maths by the decree holders vis–a–
vis the rnexrio, oi’._ca1_cvlations filed on behalf of the writ
pet:iti.on_ei’sv%/juldgment debtors, and therefore the action for
issue of fimirrant is not sustainable etc.
been issued to the respondents–1and
ownderssdecree holders before the executing court. Sri H
V’ Keshava Reddy, learned counsel has appeared for them
@//
./”
6
and submits that the action initiated against the writ
petitioners and the order passed by the learned of
the executing court is quite in order;
judge of the executing court in l..of3_:thed
controversy raised by the
debtors had directed the office___of
matter and to place before ‘thle’vcori}ectness or
otherwise of the passed the order on
the basis of thepnote put’ the court and
when such litiiere is no scope for
examinationyo-fl jurisdiction, particularly
when debtors are not Willing
to satisfygthe laward passed by the civil court in
V. y_ reference at the”‘in.s_tance of the respondents.
git__is the function of the writ court to examine as
to ‘ja..inemo of calculation filed by judgment debtor
or decree holder is correct version or whether there is any
“if in adding or subtracting figures.
6/
7
8. In fact, as is revealed even the learned judge of the
executing court found it not necessary to embarkjon such
exercise, but had directed the registry to put
up papers with their report or calculations . iii’ n A
9. If the learned judge of the executing 1′.
bona fide and on the basis of.».u’~pn
registry in the context of filed
by the judgment debtors court
does not find V any of jurisdiction
warranting correc’£ion–. oi’ ‘sxuciractiori or orders by this
court 7-exercilsingf-~._the'”=.p’ower of superintendence over
subordinate’ bcourt_s.7._ ” V
10.,,._%gIni*fact, onthe other hand I find that the matter is a
friy.o-‘.ojus__ matter, not worthy of making it subject
“n1att;erv.o’I;writpetition before this court and it is the duty
of acquiring authority to satisfy the award in terms of
V»tlr1e”.Jiudgment and award passed by the reference court. %/
8
11. Even as submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the difference is in a sum of Rs –. A
memo is also placed to this effect before
learned counsel for the petitioners. l L t l V
12. A matter of this nature L
in writ jurisdiction, particularly tinder
Constitution of India and abifise of the
process of this any legitimate
grievance sought. to,”be- of the writ
petitioners.,ljItidgtn:e_nt ipdebtporsi. :1 ‘Petitioners being public
authogritievsf” are required to act in a
responsible to litigate cantankerously like
any Esther litigant ‘or ‘a private person.
petition” is, therefore, dismissed, levying
¢_xe1np’1é;r–3zf’césrof Rs 10,000/– [Rupees ten thousand only)
onlthe.-._petit’ioners, which is to be paid to the respondents
to be “deposited before this court by the petitioners and
such deposit, respondents are permitted to withdraw
%
9
the amount through their counsel. The cost to be paid or
deposited within four weeks from today, failing the
registry is directed to issue a certificate in_’favoL_1r._iof_.vthe
respondents for recovery of the cost it
decree passed by the civii court.