R. V. VASANTHA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THERE two civil revision petitions arise out of the common order dated 4-12-1991 passed by the court of the ix additional city civil judge, Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE short question that arises for consideration is that whether it is open for the claimants to execute the award passed in land acquisition proceedings against the movables found in the office of the chief secretary to government. The trial court has given detailed reasoning as to the circumstances which warranted the executing court to issue warrant of attachment of movables found in the office of the chief secretary to the government of karnataka. ( 3 ) THE government pleader submits that the impugned order suffers from the following legal infirmities:"that the award cannot be executed against the chief secretary, since government is not a party either before the reference court or before the executing court". further, the government pleader invited this court's attention to the Provisions of sections 27,28,31 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act. ( 4 ) THE government pleader contended that it is the collector who has to pay thecost, interest, and compensation amount as determined by the court. Further, he invites the court's attention to the Provisions of land acquisition extension amendment (act 17/1961) wherein in clause 'c' of Section 3 for the words 'deputy commissioner' the words 'assistant commissioner in-charge of the district' has been substituted. His main contention is that as far as the state of Karnataka is concerned the land acquisition officer is equivalent to the post of assistant commissioner and as such he is the person to whom the government has delegated certain powers in respect of acquisition proceedings. His further contention is that taking into consideration the scope of Section 60 of CPC and also order 21, Rule 30, CPC, it is not open for claimants who have obtained awards in their favour through the reference court to execute the award as against the state. It is only open for them to proceed against the special land acquisition officer and not against the chief secretary to government. ( 5 ) BEFORE considering the contentions advanced by the government pleader it would be relevant to advert to the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the Provisions relating to the acquisition proceedings. It is only open for them to proceed against the special land acquisition officer and not against the chief secretary to government. ( 5 ) BEFORE considering the contentions advanced by the government pleader it would be relevant to advert to the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the Provisions relating to the acquisition proceedings. The pre-acquisition Provisions in the act are important, particularly the Provisions of sections 4,5,5 (a), 6,7,8 and 9. ( 6 ) THE Provisions of Section 4 relates to the preliminary investigation and publication of the preliminary notification and powers of the officers thereof. It postulates that when appropriate government needs any land for public purpose, it has to notify in the official gazette in that regard giving details of the land and also the purposes. The procedure for the government to follow, when it deems necessary that any laud is to be acquired, is that under Section 4 it causes the publication of the preliminary notification notifying the land required for public purposes. This is followed by an entry, survey and investigation by the authorised government servants, of the land in question. Section 6 enjoins the secretary to the government or some officer duly authorised to certify that the land required is for 'public purpose'. This declaration as envisaged in Section 6 will be published in the official gazette which is conclusive evidence that the land is ear-marked for public purpose. ( 7 ) IT is well recognised that the sovereign power of the state has adequate authority to command and appropriate for itself the lands situated with in its jurisdiction provided it is for the purpose of some public utility. Welfare of the people is a paramount law and it is a corner stone of law of land acquisition. The law of compensation is inter-twined with the law of acquisition. Where property has been compulsorily acquired by the government and the possession taken by the government, it must pay not only compensation but other benefits such as solatium, interest etc. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act regarding determination of compensation, guidelines to be followed by the land acquisition officer as envisaged under sections 23 and 24 of the act for determining compensation, making of an award, vesting of the land in the state government and the reference to be made to the court etc. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act regarding determination of compensation, guidelines to be followed by the land acquisition officer as envisaged under sections 23 and 24 of the act for determining compensation, making of an award, vesting of the land in the state government and the reference to be made to the court etc. , need not be discussed elaborately as the same is not necessary. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act envisages the power to take possession of the acquired land. Section 16 reads:"16. Power to take possession: (1) when the deputy commissioner has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the government, free from all encumbrances". ( 8 ) IN Somavanthi v State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 151 , the Supreme Court has observed at para 29 as follows:" (29) learned counsel put the matter in a slightly different way and said that Section 6 (3) presupposes that the jurisdictional fact exists, namely, that there is a public purpose or the purpose of a company behind the acquisition and, therefore, the question whether it exists or not is justiciable. The act has empowered the government to determine the question of the need of land for a public purpose or for a company and the jurisdiction conferred upon him to do so is not made conditional upon the existence of a collateral or extraneous fact. It is the existence of the need for a public purpose which gives jurisdiction to the government to make a declaration under Section 6 (1) and makes it the sole judge whether there is in fact a need and whether the purpose for which there is that need is a public purpose". ( 9 ) AT para 30:"30. That being so, all that remains is to determine whether the purpose here is a purpose in which the general interest of the community is concerned. Prima facie the government are good judges of that. They are not absolute judges. They cannot say 'sic volo sic jebeo', but at least a court could not easily hold them to be wrong. That being so, all that remains is to determine whether the purpose here is a purpose in which the general interest of the community is concerned. Prima facie the government are good judges of that. They are not absolute judges. They cannot say 'sic volo sic jebeo', but at least a court could not easily hold them to be wrong. But here, so far from holding them to be wrong, the whole of the learned judges, who are thoroughly conversant with the conditions of Indian life say that they are satisfied that the scheme is one which will redound to public benefit by helping the government to maintain the efficiency of its servants". ( 10 ) THE power of the sovereign to take private property for public use and the consequent right of the owner for compensation are well established. It is a known fact that the state is represented by the secretary to the government. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the notice to be issued to the government. 80 (1) (c) reads:" (C) in the case of a suit against any other state government, a secretary to that government or the collector of the district; and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left". Section 80 contemplates as to the person against whom notice has to be issued to the government and to be served. If the authorities to whom the government has enjoined to make compensation fail to discharge their statutory obligations, it is inevitable for the public to seek out the remedy against the state. It cannot be argued that the award passed by the reference court, will not partake the character of a decree. When once it partakes the character of a decree, the state becomes the judgment-debtor. Under Section 60 of the CPC contemplates the nature of the properties liable to attachment and sold in execution of a decree. Section 60 reads:"60. It cannot be argued that the award passed by the reference court, will not partake the character of a decree. When once it partakes the character of a decree, the state becomes the judgment-debtor. Under Section 60 of the CPC contemplates the nature of the properties liable to attachment and sold in execution of a decree. Section 60 reads:"60. The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundies, promissory notes, government securities, bonds, or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation, and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf. ( 11 ) IN the instant case the decree-holders (claimants) have sought for the attachment of the movables of the government that are found in the office of the chief secretary of the state. The contention of the government Advocate that the movables that are found in the office of the chief secretary cannot be considered as the movables of the judgment-debtor cannot be accepted. ( 12 ) THE court-below has given its anxious consideration before passing the impugned order. In paragraph 7 of its Order, the executing court has given a detailed reasonings as to the circumstances which warranted the executing court to issue warrant of attachment of movable as sought by the decree-holders. Para 7 of the impugned order reads:"7. It is not disputed that in all the above cases, the judgment-debtor have not complied with the decree in full and execution petitions are pending since 1987. It is also not disputed that the lands of the decree-holders have been acquired for the railways and state having suffered the judgment and decree of award enhancing the compensation, it was for the judgment-debtors to have promptly deposited the decretal amount or obtain stay of the execution by preferring appeal if any. It cannot also be disputed by the judgment-debtor No. 1 that sufficient time is granted over a period of four years to satisfy the decree, no valid reason is shown for not complying with the decree. It cannot also be disputed by the judgment-debtor No. 1 that sufficient time is granted over a period of four years to satisfy the decree, no valid reason is shown for not complying with the decree. The learned government district pleader has however filed a memo on 22-11-1991 requesting fora month time to get the amount released. It is to be noted that this submission is being made over the last few months, and the l. a. o. , railways to whom notice has been issued has not appeared to swear to an affidavit seeking extension of time to satisfy the decree. Accommodation shown to the judgment-debtors to enable them to comply with the terms of decree has been in vain. In all these cases as and when attachment warrant is issued it is returned with a shara of l. a. o. , stating that amount will be deposited after obtaining funds from the authorities. In execution 1386/1987, the shara is made for the date of hearing 21-11-1988. For the date of hearing 27-8-1990, show-cause notice was ordered to the chief secretary as to why the movables of his office as prayed for by the decree-holders should not be attached. This notice has been returned served but with no result, again show-cause notice were ordered on 5-8-1991, and it has been returned served on 9-9-1991. Inspite of it, no effort is made to comply with the decree. Merely because the chief secretary who is the head on the administrative side of the state is not impleaded as a party is no ground to refuse to issue attachment of movables as decree-holders have been left with no option but to ask for attachment of the movables of the chief secretary, so that the administrative head of the state can bestow his attention on the affairs relating to acquisition of properties and the resultant fate of the land owners who are driven from pillar to post to get the decree of the civil court satisfied. The l. a. o. , who is the judgment-debtor No. 1 in these cases, has been callously indifferent and he appears to think that as and when the government released funds, he will deposit the amount and that he need not do anything more in the matter. The l. a. o. , who is the judgment-debtor No. 1 in these cases, has been callously indifferent and he appears to think that as and when the government released funds, he will deposit the amount and that he need not do anything more in the matter. Therefore, faced with this indifferent attitude of the judgment-debtor No. 1 the court executing the decree is left with no option but to order of attachment of movables of the office of the chief secretary. I wish to make it clear, that court has acted with utmost restraint in accommodating judgment-debtors, to enable them to move the concerned authorities to get the funds released for depositing in the court towards satisfaction of the decree. But, as the attitude of the judgment-debtors being unhelpful, the attachment of the movables as prayed for by the decree-holders is ordered in the interests of justice. The following order is passed. Order issue attachment of movables of the office of chief secretary, state of kamataka, vidhana soudha, Bangalore, after two weeks from today. Before the attachment of movables of the office of the chief secretary is issued, the decree-holders shall file affidavit or a verified statement swearing to the fact that the amount prayed for in the e. p. is not deposited in the court or paid to them and that they have not claimed anything in excess allowed under the decree, and the office of the court shall verify the correctness of the amount for which execution is levied and attachment sought for before issue of attachment of movables in each of the cases". ( 13 ) WHAT is to be noted in the instant case which is the subject-matter of the revision is that it is apparent that the judgment-debtor has not deposited the compensation amount as determined by the reference court, against which no appeals seem to have been preferred by the state government. The government pleader submits that, it is open for the decree-holders to proceed against the land acquisition officer and not against the chief secretary, since the chief secretary and the government cannot be termed as a judgment-debtors. The government pleader submits that, it is open for the decree-holders to proceed against the land acquisition officer and not against the chief secretary, since the chief secretary and the government cannot be termed as a judgment-debtors. The entire scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the Provisions governing the acquisition of the lands in question, envisage the power of the government to acquire the land and in consequence of the acquisition, compensation to be made payable to the owner of the land in question. Even though the land acquisition officer is a party to the reference, it is to be considered that the government is a party, since land acquisition officer is only a delegate of government. Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act reads:"26. Form of awards. (1) every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub-section (1) of Section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts. (2) every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statements of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of Section 2, clause (2), and Section 2, clause (9) respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (v of 1908) and the provision of the said code relating to execution shall so far as may be apply to the execution of such award: provided that execution shall not be issued on any such award against the government or any officer thereof unless it remains unsatisfied for a period of 90 days from the date of such award". ( 14 ) IN view of that award that is passed against the land acquisition officer would be an award against the government. If that being the case, the contentions raised by the government advocate, that the government cannot be considered as a judgment-debtor in view of the fact that they are not parties to the reference proceedings cannot be accepted. ( 15 ) SO the reasonings recorded and the findings arrived at by the executing courtin ordering attachment of the movables of the office of the chief secretary to government of Karnataka is based on sound principles and the same do not suffer from any legal infirmities. ( 15 ) SO the reasonings recorded and the findings arrived at by the executing courtin ordering attachment of the movables of the office of the chief secretary to government of Karnataka is based on sound principles and the same do not suffer from any legal infirmities. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated the impugned order is confirmed. The executing courtis directed to proceed further in the execution cases. These civil revision petitions are dismissed. --- *** --- .