B.V. Nagarathna 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 Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Case No. 2713/2012 filed by Respondent No. 1 herein (decree holder) against Respondent No. 2 herein (judgment debtor), the BDA has preferred the present appeals.
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, 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........