Date of the Judgment: 06 December 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 727
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a development authority’s claim to land acquired decades ago be ignored in a property dispute between private parties? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the powers of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in such matters. The court emphasized that when the BDA claims a right or title to a property based on prior acquisition, its claim must be considered by the executing court. This judgment ensures that the BDA’s rights are not undermined in private disputes, safeguarding public interest. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Case Background
In 1977, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired 1 acre and 15 guntas of land in Survey No. 12/2 of Geddalahalli Village under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. A final notification was issued on 02.08.1978 under Section 19 of the same Act. The BDA awarded compensation of Rs. 17,393.75 on 12.06.1981. The BDA claimed that possession was taken on 16.07.1981 and handed over to its Engineering Section. A notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 01.04.1982, confirming the possession.
However, in 1999, approximately 17 years after the land was vested with BDA, respondent No. 1, N. Nanjappa, entered into a lease agreement with respondent No. 2 concerning a part of the acquired land. N. Nanjappa then filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 3797/2000) against respondent No. 2 for eviction, without including the BDA as a party. The trial court dismissed the suit on 20.03.2008, but the High Court allowed the appeal (RFA No. 468/2008) on 13.06.2012, decreeing the suit in favor of N. Nanjappa. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by respondent No. 2 on 11.02.2013.
Following this, N. Nanjappa initiated execution proceedings (E.P. No. 2713/2012). The BDA, upon learning of the High Court’s decision, filed a suit (O.S. No. 2070/2013) seeking a declaration that the lease agreement was void and sought a permanent injunction against the execution of the decree. The BDA also filed applications under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in the execution proceedings, seeking impleadment and a stay of the execution.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1977 | BDA initiated land acquisition under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. |
| 02.08.1978 | Final notification issued under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. |
| 12.06.1981 | Award passed, fixing compensation at Rs. 17,393.75. |
| 16.07.1981 | BDA claims possession was taken and handed over to the Engineering Section. |
| 01.04.1982 | Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued. |
| 16.08.1999 | N. Nanjappa (Respondent No. 1) entered into a lease agreement with Respondent No. 2. |
| 2000 | N. Nanjappa filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 3797/2000) against Respondent No. 2 for eviction. |
| 20.03.2008 | Trial court dismissed N. Nanjappa’s suit. |
| 13.06.2012 | High Court allowed N. Nanjappa’s appeal (RFA No. 468/2008), decreeing the suit. |
| 11.02.2013 | Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by Respondent No. 2. |
| 2013 | BDA filed a suit (O.S. No. 2070/2013) seeking to declare the lease agreement void and filed applications under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC in the execution proceedings. |
| 29.01.2015 | Executing Court rejected BDA’s applications. |
| 21.03.2016 | High Court dismissed BDA’s writ petitions. |
| 06.12.2021 | Supreme Court allowed BDA’s appeals. |
Course of Proceedings
The Executing Court rejected the BDA’s applications on 29.01.2015, stating that there was no proof that the BDA had taken possession of the land after acquisition. The High Court dismissed the BDA’s writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 37943-37944/2015) on 21.03.2016, upholding the Executing Court’s order. The High Court agreed with the Executing Court that the BDA could not obstruct the execution of the decree without establishing its possession of the land.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC deals with resistance or obstruction to the possession of immovable property. It states:
“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.”
Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC specifies that all questions, including those related to the right, title, or interest in the property, arising between the parties in a proceeding under Rule 97 or Rule 99, must be determined by the executing court and not through a separate suit. It states:
“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.”
The Court observed that these provisions ensure that all relevant disputes regarding the property are settled in the execution proceedings itself, avoiding multiplicity of suits.
Arguments
The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) argued that the High Court and the Executing Court misinterpreted Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 101 of the CPC. The BDA contended that an objector need not be in possession to raise an objection; a claim of title is sufficient. The BDA asserted that it had acquired the land in 1977, and the possession was handed over to its Engineering Section. The BDA also highlighted that a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued, vesting the land with the BDA. The lease agreement between the respondents was entered into after the acquisition and was therefore illegal.
The BDA further argued that the Executing Court should have allowed its impleadment application, as it claimed title based on the acquisition. The BDA emphasized that Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC mandates that all questions related to right, title, or interest in the property must be decided by the executing court.
The respondents argued that the BDA had not taken actual possession of the land, which remained with the judgment debtor. They contended that the BDA’s application under Order XXI Rule 97 was rightly dismissed because the BDA had not established its possession.
Submissions of the Parties
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) | Misinterpretation of Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 101 CPC | ✓ An objector need not be in possession to raise an objection. |
| ✓ Claim of title is sufficient for raising an objection. | ||
| BDA’s Claim of Title and Possession | ✓ Land was acquired in 1977, and possession was handed over to the Engineering Section. | |
| ✓ Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued, vesting the land with the BDA. | ||
| Respondents (N. Nanjappa and another) | BDA’s Lack of Possession | ✓ BDA did not take actual possession of the land. |
| ✓ Possession remained with the judgment debtor. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the executing court was correct in rejecting the BDA’s application for impleadment and objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC, given the BDA’s claim of title based on prior acquisition.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Executing Court was correct in rejecting the BDA’s application for impleadment and objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC? | The Executing Court was incorrect in rejecting BDA’s application. | The BDA’s claim of title based on prior acquisition required adjudication by the Executing Court under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court referred to Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing the importance of adjudicating all relevant disputes in the execution proceedings to avoid multiplicity of suits.
| Authority | Court | How Authority was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Order XXI Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | – | Explained the provision regarding resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property. |
| Order XXI Rule 101, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | – | Explained the provision regarding determination of all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property by the executing court. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the Executing Court erred in rejecting the BDA’s applications. The Court emphasized that when the BDA claims a right, title, or interest in the land based on prior acquisition, such claims must be adjudicated by the Executing Court. The Court noted that the lease agreement between the respondents was subsequent to the acquisition, making the BDA’s claim paramount. The court stated that the Executing Court should have impleaded the BDA and adjudicated on the obstruction/objection raised by the BDA, including the question of right, title, or interest based on the acquisition.
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Executing Court, allowing the BDA to be impleaded in the execution proceedings. The Executing Court was directed to adjudicate the BDA’s claims within six months.
The Court observed that as per Order XXI Rule 101 of the 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.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) | Misinterpretation of Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 101 CPC | The Court agreed that the High Court and Executing Court misinterpreted the provisions. The Court held that an objector need not be in possession to raise an objection; a claim of title is sufficient. |
| Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) | BDA’s Claim of Title and Possession | The Court accepted BDA’s claim that the land was acquired in 1977, and a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued, vesting the land with the BDA. |
| Respondents (N. Nanjappa and another) | BDA’s Lack of Possession | The Court rejected the argument that BDA had not taken actual possession and held that the BDA’s claim of title was sufficient to warrant adjudication by the Executing Court. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on the following authorities:
✓ Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC: The Court interpreted this provision to mean that any person who resists the execution of a decree for possession of immovable property may file an application before the executing court. The Court clarified that the objector need not be in possession of the property to raise an objection.
✓ Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC: The Court emphasized that this provision mandates the executing court to determine all questions related to the right, title, or interest in the property arising between the parties to the execution proceedings. This includes questions raised by an objector like the BDA.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that all disputes related to the property in question should be resolved in the execution proceedings itself, avoiding multiplicity of suits. The Court was also guided by the fact that the BDA had a prior claim to the land based on acquisition proceedings, which could not be ignored. The Court emphasized that the BDA’s claim of title, even without physical possession, was sufficient to warrant adjudication under Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Prior Claim of BDA | 40% |
| Adjudication of all disputes in execution proceedings | 30% |
| Interpretation of Order XXI Rule 101 CPC | 20% |
| Avoiding Multiplicity of Suits | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
BDA claims title to the land based on acquisition.
BDA files an objection in execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.
Executing Court rejects BDA’s application, stating lack of possession.
Supreme Court overturns the decision, emphasizing that under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property needs to be adjudicated by the Executing Court.
Executing Court must now implead BDA and adjudicate its claim.
The Court considered the argument that the BDA had not taken actual possession of the land, but rejected it, stating that the BDA’s claim of title, supported by the acquisition proceedings, was sufficient to warrant adjudication by the Executing Court. The Court emphasized that all disputes related to the property should be resolved in the execution proceedings itself, as mandated by Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“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.”
“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.”
Key Takeaways
- An objector in execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC does not need to prove possession, a claim of title is sufficient.
- The Executing Court is mandated to adjudicate all questions of right, title, or interest in the property under Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC, avoiding the need for separate suits.
- Development authorities’ claims based on prior land acquisition must be considered in execution proceedings, even if the authority does not have physical possession.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Executing Court to implead the BDA in the execution proceedings and adjudicate the BDA’s claims within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that in execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC, an objector claiming title to the property does not need to prove possession; a claim of title is sufficient. Further, all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property must be adjudicated by the executing court itself under Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC. This judgment clarifies the scope of Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 101 of the CPC and ensures that the rights of development authorities are protected in property disputes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bangalore Development Authority vs. N. Nanjappa and another clarifies the rights of development authorities in property disputes. The court held that the BDA’s claim of title based on prior acquisition must be adjudicated by the executing court, even if the BDA does not have physical possession of the land. This judgment ensures that development authorities’ claims are not ignored in private property disputes, and it reinforces the importance of Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC in resolving all relevant disputes within the execution proceedings.