ORDER : B.V. NAGARATHNA, J. 1. Though this writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' - Group along with I.A. No.1/2016 for vacating the interim order, with consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. The petitioner herein claims to be the absolute owner of plot bearing Sy. No.64/11 of Kattagollahalli village, measuring 2 acres. That land, along with other lands was acquired by the 1st respondent herein for the benefit of the 2nd respondent - Defence, Research and Development Organization ('DRDO' for short). The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the said award, the petitioner herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). Reference was made by the concerned Deputy Commissioner and L.A.C. No.219/1999 was initiated on the file of the City Civil Court at Bangalore City ('Reference Court' for short). The Reference Court awarded Rs.3,45,000/- per acre as the enhanced compensation. 3. Being aggrieved by the said enhancement, the 1st respondent herein filed M.F.A. No.2585/2004 seeking reduction of the compensation before this Court while the petitioner herein filed cross-objection in M.F.A. Crob. No.392/2007. The Division Bench of this Court however allowed the cross-objection and dismissed the appeal filed by the 1st respondent-Land Acquisition Officer. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Division Bench of this Court which enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,40,000/- per acre, DRDO filed Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 26.02.2014. 4. Before proceeding to the details of the impugned order at this stage, it is relevant to mention that one person by name Sri. B. Krishnappa had sought impleadment in the Special Leave Petitions before Hon'ble Supreme Court contending that he is the actual owner of the land in question and therefore, he is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of acquired land. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted a copy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court not only dismissing the Special Leave Petitions filed by the DRDO but also no order being passed on the application for impleadment sought by Sri. B. Krishnappa. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted a copy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court not only dismissing the Special Leave Petitions filed by the DRDO but also no order being passed on the application for impleadment sought by Sri. B. Krishnappa. 5. In the interregnum, the petitioner herein had filed Execution No.2116/2009 before City Civil Court seeking execution of the Judgment and Award passed by the Division Bench of this Court. It is also brought to my notice that in the said execution petition the 2nd respondent-DRDO has deposited certain sums of money on two occasions and that a sum of Rs.33,36,208/- has been deposited before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru City in respect of which amount the controversy arises in this writ petition. Sri. B. Krishnappa, was unsuccessful in getting an order of impleadment in the Special Leave Petitions before Hon'ble Supreme Court, but strangely, the DRDO had sought for substitution of the name of Sri. B. Krishnappa, in place of the name of the petitioner herein, in the cause title of the Special Leave Petitions before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the substitution was allowed by way of amendment of cause title in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.31805-06/2010 filed by DRDO. As already noted, no orders were passed on the application filed by Sri. B. Krishnappa for impleadment in the Special Leave Petitions. 6. B. Krishnappa had in the meanwhile filed O.S.No.2/2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the land in question and also consequential injunction against the 1st defendant therein, i.e. the petitioner herein, restraining him from receiving compensation in respect of land in question, which was acquired for the benefit of DRDO in respect of which Execution No.2116/2002 was filed by the petitioner herein. In the said suit both petitioner herein as well as the 1st respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer were placed ex parte. That suit was decreed ex parte by Judgment and Decree dated 03.04.2012. Sri. B. Krishnappa thereafter preferred Execution No.78/2012 to execute the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.2/2012. The said execution petition is also pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 7. That suit was decreed ex parte by Judgment and Decree dated 03.04.2012. Sri. B. Krishnappa thereafter preferred Execution No.78/2012 to execute the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.2/2012. The said execution petition is also pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 7. When the matter stood thus DRDO filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Execution No.2116/2009 pending on the file of II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru instituted by the petitioner herein, praying for transfer of the amount deposited by them in the said Execution Petition before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Execution No.78/2012 which was filed by B. Krishnappa pursuant to an ex parte judgment and decree dated 03.04.2012 passed in O.S. No.2/2012. In fact B. Krishnappa had also filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for transfer of the amount deposited by the DRDO before the Reference Court, to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Execution No.78/2012. By the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 the Reference Court has dismissed the application filed by the B. Krishnappa under Order 21, Rule 97 read with Section 151 of CPC, but has allowed the application filed by the Judgment Debtor No.2/Respondent No.2-DRDO under Section 151 of CPC. Being aggrieved by the said order the Decree Holder has preferred this writ petition. 8. By order dated 30.03.2016 this Court has restrained the disbursement of the amount deposited in Execution No. 2116/2009 before II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Senior Division, Bengaluru i.e., the Reference Court. The 2nd Respondent has filed an application I.A.No.1/2016 seeking vacation of the said order. The said application has been listed along with the writ petition for preliminary hearing in ' B - Group. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as also the learned ASG appearing for respondent No.2. With their consent, the writ petition is heard finally. 10. Petitioner's counsel contended that the Trial Court has passed a contradictory order. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as also the learned ASG appearing for respondent No.2. With their consent, the writ petition is heard finally. 10. Petitioner's counsel contended that the Trial Court has passed a contradictory order. While dismissing the application filed by B. Krishnappa, it has allowed the application filed by the 2nd respondent-DRDO seeking transfer of the amount deposited by DRDO before the Reference Court to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Execution No.78/2012. He contended that the DRDO was not a party to O.S. No.2/2012 and no Judgment and Decree has been passed by the said Court as against DRDO. DRDO has in response to Execution No.2116/2009 filed by petitioner herein deposited certain sums on two occasions in the said case. Presently, a sum of Rs.33 lakhs and odd is in deposit in Execution No.2116/2009. Therefore it was wholly unnecessary on the part of DRDO to seek transfer of the said amount deposited in Execution No.2116/2009 before the Reference Court, to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Execution No.78/2012. 11. Learned counsel further contended that the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2/2012 is an ex parte decree and that Miscellaneous No.34/2015 has been preferred before the said Court, which is pending adjudication until vacation. Therefore the impugned order passed on application filed by the DRDO may be quashed and the direction be issued to the Trial Court not to transfer the said amount to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Execution No.78/2012 as that case which is filed by Krishnappa, who is a stranger to the land in question and therefore is not entitled to any compensation in respect of the said land. 12. 12. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, who has filed the application IA No.1/2016 seeking vacation of the interim order contended that the Reference Court was justified in passing such an order on the application made by the DRDO as by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, B.Krishnappa was substituted by the petitioner herein and that having regard to the fact that the Judgment and Decree is of the year 2012, it has been declared that B.Krishnappa is the owner of the land in question and therefore he is entitled to receive the compensation amount. Further there is an order in the judgment passed in O.S. No.2/2012, restraining the petitioner herein from receiving the compensation amount. Therefore there is no merit in the writ petition. 13. Learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that the dispute herein is between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent-DRDO with regard to transfer of the amount deposited by DRDO and that the application for vacating stay pending in this petition may be allowed and the writ petition be dismissed. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid detailed narration of facts, it is noted that the DRDO, on more than one occasion has deposited the compensation amount in Execution No.2116/2009 instituted by the petitioner herein by accepting the fact that he is the owner of land in question. In fact petitioner's counsel submits that he has also withdrawn a portion of the amount. In respect of such withdrawal, DRDO has given its express "No objection". When such being the position, strangely DRDO got substitution of the petitioner's name with that of B. Krishnappa in the Special Leave Petitions filed by it before Hon'ble Supreme Court. It could be that the substitution is in the background of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.2/2012 filed by B. Krishnappa, in which a declaration has been given that he is the owner of suit schedule property and an order restraining petitioner herein from receiving of the compensation amount. Be that as it may, the DRDO is not a party to the said O.S. No.2/2012. There is no direction issued against DRDO nor any compensation awarded whatsoever to Sri. B. Krishnappa. 15. Be that as it may, the DRDO is not a party to the said O.S. No.2/2012. There is no direction issued against DRDO nor any compensation awarded whatsoever to Sri. B. Krishnappa. 15. On the other hand since the time of acquisition of the land, it is the petitioner herein who has always claimed compensation for acquiring the land in question and the same has reached finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court insofar as awarding compensation is concerned. The mere substitution of the name of B. Krishnappa in the cause-title of the Special Leave Petitions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court sought by the DRDO would not imply that B. Krishnappa is entitled to receive the compensation. That aspect of the matter is still pending adjudication in Miscellaneous No.34/2015. In the circumstances DRDO could not have been over anxious to seek an order in Execution No.2116/2009 for transfer of the amount deposited in the said case to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Execution No.78/2012. Strangely, the Trial Court while dismissing the application filed by B. Krishnappa under Order 21, Rule 97 read with Section 151 of CPC has allowed the application filed by DRDO under Section 151 of CPC. The impugned order is contrary and wholly illegal. 16. In the circumstances the order passed by the reference Court on the application filed by the DRDO is quashed. There can be no transfer of the amount in deposit in Execution No.2116/2009 to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Execution No.78/2012. The reference court is directed to deposit the amount deposited by the DRDO in any interest bearing Fixed deposit for a period of one year initially with automatic renewal, in any Nationalised Bank subject to further orders from this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 18. In view of disposal of the writ petition, IA No.1/2016 stands disposed.