ORDER : 1. It is unfortunate that the State Government is a litigant to a frivolous writ petition filed against the order dated 20.02.2017 holding that the Decree Holder is entitled to the compensation amount mentioned in the execution petition. Time was granted till 01.03.2017 to take steps. 2. The parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the State Government that the State had acquired the house property measuring 30’ x 40’, Survey No.79, Voddihatti, Madla village, Chikkmagaluru taluk, Assessment No.6, Siruvase Grama Panchayath, Jagara Hobli, Chikkmagaluru District. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.165/2002 for a declaration against the petitioners & respondent No.2 contending that he is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the house property. After contest, suit came to be dismissed. As against the said Judgment and decree, the 1st respondent filed appeal in R.A.No.235/2010 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Chikkmagaluru. The Appellate Court, after hearing both the parties, by its Judgment and Decree dated 01.08.2011, has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. In view of the same, the 1st respondent filed Execution Petition No.145/2016 for implementation of the Judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.235/2010. The executing Court, by the impugned order dated 20.02.2017, has held that the decree-holder is entitled for recovery of the compensation amount. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioners/State. 5. Sri.Vasanth V.Fernandes, learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that compensation amount was already paid to the 1st defendant/Judgment Debtor No.1 during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.165/2002 on 24.02.2004 itself and ultimately, suit came to be dismissed. He further submits that it was brought to the notice of the lower Appellate Court that in spite of the same the lower Appellate Court has proceeded to allow the appeal. When the entire amount was paid to the 1st defendant/Judgment Debtor No.1, question of paying the amount to the plaintiff-decree holder does not arise. He further contended that the very decree passed by the lower Appellate Court in R.A.No.235/2000 has become infructuous. Therefore, the execution petition filed on the basis of decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is not maintainable. He further contended that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the 1st defendant and not from the State Government. He further contended that the very decree passed by the lower Appellate Court in R.A.No.235/2000 has become infructuous. Therefore, the execution petition filed on the basis of decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is not maintainable. He further contended that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the 1st defendant and not from the State Government. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 6. Having heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner-State, it is an undisputed fact that 1st respondent who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, filed a suit in O.S.No.165/2002 to declare that he is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the house property in question claiming that he is the owner of the suit schedule property measuring 30’ x 40’ situated in Survey No.79 of Vaddihatti village, Madla village, Chikkamagalur taluk. Admittedly, the suit came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the 1st respondent filed an appeal in R.A.No.235/2010 before the Fast Track Court, Chikkmagalur. The lower Appellate Court, after considering the entire material on record, framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in occupation of the suit property as on the date of the suit? (ii) Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendants 1 to 3 are trying to deprive him of his right to claim compensation in respect of the suit property? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction? (iv) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for any interference by this Court? (v) What order? 7. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff proved that he was in occupation of suit property as on the date of the suit and further proved that the Defendants 1 to 3 are trying to deprive him of his right to claim compensation in respect of the suit property and the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court calls for interference. Accordingly, the lower Appellate Court, by the Judgment and Decree dated 1st August 2011, has allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and specifically recorded a finding of fact that the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly establish that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed by him as the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documents at Exs.P.1 and 2 very clearly establish that the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit house till 2001-02. As such, the conclusion arrived at and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, are against the principles of law. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation amount in respect of the suit schedule property which reads as under: 23. Thus on a careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is noticed that the name of the plaintiff was appearing in Ex.P1 Tax receipt book for the year 2001-2002 as the occupier of the house. Ex.P.2 and 12 are one and the same and they are demand register extracts in which the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as occupier of the said house from 1997-98 to 2001-02. In other words, as on the date of the suit, the plaintiff was the occupier of the suit property. In view of the above, the evidence of D.Ws.2 and 3 that the plaintiff was not at all in possession of the suit property, he has left the suit property in the year 1997-98 itself is not believable and acceptable. Ex.P.1, 2 and 12 clearly indicate that the plaintiff was in possession and occupation of the suit property till 2001-2002. The first defendant has no manner of right or interest over the suit property. He has not produced any documents in his favour to show that he has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff. Therefore, from the documents at Ex.P.1, P.2 and P.12, it is clear that the plaintiff has been in possession and occupation of the suit property as on the date of the suit. Ex.D.1 is the letter addressed by the RFO to DCF, Chikmagalur regarding issue of permit for transportation of old timbers but it does not mention the particulars of the house. Ex.D.1 is the letter addressed by the RFO to DCF, Chikmagalur regarding issue of permit for transportation of old timbers but it does not mention the particulars of the house. Ex.D2 is the mahazar drawn by the Forester in the presence of panchas showing that old forest produce was to be transported to MC Halli in view of rehabilitation undertaken by the government. The said mahazar also does not reveal that it relates to the suit property. Ex.D3 is Form No.29 issued by the Forester about removing of timber and forest produce from other house and accordingly, pass was issued to the first defendant to transport the same. But no where in Ex.D3 it is stated that the said forest produces was transported from the suit house. The suit housel measuring 30 x 40 feet is situated in Sy No.79 in Voddihatti of Madla village. lIn Ex.P1 the houseis shown as constructed and Ex.P2 and 12 demand register extract reveal the name of the plaintiff as the occupier of the house for which house tax was also assessed. In other words, Ex.P1 and P2 are the panchayath records which reveal that plaintiff had construed the suit house and was in occupation of the same alongwith his family members. There are no documents produced by defendant no.1 to show that he was residing in the said house, having purchased the same from the plaintiff. 24. Further, defendant No.1 without any documentary evidence over the suit property is trying to deprive the plaintiff from getting rehabilitation compensation from defendants 2 to 5 by suppressing the real facts. Such an act of the first defendant with defendants 2 to 5 indicate that they are depriving the plaintiff from the rightful compensation to which he is entitled to from the government. In view of the fact that the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit property, he is entitled to compensation to be paid by defendants 2 to 5 but not defendant no.1. Thus from the evidence on record, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for and also the relief of permanent injunction against defendants 2 to 5 from paying the compensation amount in favour of defendant no.1 with respect to suit house. 25. Thus from the evidence on record, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for and also the relief of permanent injunction against defendants 2 to 5 from paying the compensation amount in favour of defendant no.1 with respect to suit house. 25. Further defendant no.2 has contended in the written statement that compensation amount will be decided soon after receipt of sanction order from the Government; action will be taken to pay the same to the owner of the house. This clearly establishes that the compensation amount will be paid to the owner of the house. In this case, it is established that the plaintiff is the owner in occupation of the suit house by unauthorisedly constructing the same and the compensation amount, if any has to be paid to him, as he is the owner in occupation of the suit house. 27. Thus, the oral and documents evidence on record clearly establish that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief’s claimed by him. But the trial Court has held the same against the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has been in possession of the suit house. The trial Court has believed the version of the defendant and his witnesses without any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the documents at Ex.P.1 and 2 very clearly establish that the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit house till 2001-2002. As such the findings conclusion arrived at and the findings given by the trial court against the principles of law and as such it has to be set aside. Under the circumstances, I find sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court. ORDER The Regular Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dt.11.6.2007 passed by learned Principal Civil Judge (JD), Chikkmagalur in O.S.No.165/2002 is set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation amount to be paid by defendants 2 to 5 with regard to suit schedule house. Further defendants 2 to 5 are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from making payment of any compensation amount with respect to suit schedule house in favour of defendant no.1. Further defendants 2 to 5 are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from making payment of any compensation amount with respect to suit schedule house in favour of defendant no.1. The said Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate Court holding that the plaintiff is entitled for compensation, directing the defendants to pay compensation amount in respect of suit house to the plaintiff - decree-holder has reached finality. 8. The undisputed fact that as per the statement of the Learned HCGP that during the pendency of the suit, the compensation amount has been disbursed in favour of the 1st defendant- Judgment Debtor No.1, in a matter that is subjudice and determination of right, title and interest was pending adjudication between the parties to the lis. The 1st defendant as well as the petitioners-authorities of the Government were parties to the suit, the authorities of the State Government in all fairness, ought not to have disbursed compensation amount in favour of the 1st defendant and ought to have deposited the compensation amount before the Court enabling the ultimate successful party to the suit to receive the same and no permission was obtained from the Court before disbursement of the compensation amount. Therefore, the conduct and action of the authorities of the State Government in releasing the amount in favour of the 1st defendant is nothing but to circumvent the Court proceedings, that too when the matter was subjudice before the Civil Court, which is impermissible and improper. 9. The Appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal on merits on the presumption that the amount not yet released and ultimately, held that the plaintiff is entitled for compensation and granted injunction restraining the Defendants 2 to 5, the officials of the Government from making any payment of compensation in respect of suit house in favour of the 1st defendant. Unfortunately, the same was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Court. The compensation amount was released, when the suit was pending for adjudication of the claim of the parties to the lis, which is contrary to the material on record. The action of the Government authorities is nothing but obstruction of administration of justice. Unfortunately, the same was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Court. The compensation amount was released, when the suit was pending for adjudication of the claim of the parties to the lis, which is contrary to the material on record. The action of the Government authorities is nothing but obstruction of administration of justice. It is nothing but a collusion between the authorities of the State Government and 1st defendant only to deprive the valuable rights, title and interest in respect of the immovable house property of the plaintiff – decree-holder, which is impermissible. 10. Though the learned Govt. Pleader submits that amount was already released in favour of 1st defendant on 24.04.2004 during the pendency of the suit, but the order sheet dated 06.06.2017 in Execution No.145/2016 depicts that the State Govt. has filed the application to recall attachment warrant and a memo stating that after calculation of the compensation amount, they are ready to deposit the prescribed amount, though it was ordered to issue attachment warrant, the same not yet issued, suppressing the fact that state already filed the present writ petition on 28.4.2017, but the said order of warrant not challenged by the petitioner-State. 11. The Executing Court, considering the application and memo filed by the authorities of the State ensuring faithful implementation of the order by an order dated 06.06.2017, has recalled the attachment warrant of movable properties and permitted to deposit the amount within the next date of hearing, which reads as under: “Learned DGP appearing from J.Dr.Nos.2 to 5 got advanced the case and filed an application u/s.151 of CPC to recall the attachment warrant of movables and also filed a memo submitting that, after calculated the amount they are ready to deposit the prescribed amount. Though it was ordered to issue attachment warrant of movable, But the said warrant is not yet issued. By considering the application of J.Dr Nos.2 to 5, the attachment warrant of movable is recalled. They are permitted to deposit the amount within the next date of hearing. Call on 22.07.2017.” Unfortunately, the authorities of the State Government have not abide by their commitment in the application filed to recall the warrant or the memo filed and failed to deposit the amount in terms of the order of the Court. 12. They are permitted to deposit the amount within the next date of hearing. Call on 22.07.2017.” Unfortunately, the authorities of the State Government have not abide by their commitment in the application filed to recall the warrant or the memo filed and failed to deposit the amount in terms of the order of the Court. 12. The learned Government Pleader, at one breath submits that compensation amount was released in favour of the 1st defendant during the pendency of the suit between the parties, i.e., 24.04.2004. On another breath, the District Government Pleader in Execution Petition No.145/2016 filed an application to recall the attachment warrant and filed a memo stating that after calculating the amount, it was ready to deposit the said amount. It is pertinent to note that the present writ petition was filed on 28.04.2017. Even after filing writ petition, learned District Govt. Pleader filed application to recall warrant and a memo before the Executing Court, i.e., subsequent to filing of writ petition, i.e., on 06.06.2017 that they are ready to pay the amount and warrant be recalled. On the basis of the application and the memo filed by the District Govt. Pleader, the warrant which was issued to attach movable properties was recalled. 13. Very Strangely, the State Government immediately proceeded to move the memo before this Court for posting of the present writ petition on 20.06.2017, challenging the order dated 20.02.2017 ignoring the commitment made on 06.06.2017 before the Executing Court by filing application with affidavit on oath and a memo defeating an indefeasible right, title and interest of the decree-holder, which is impermissible. This is nothing but daring raid on the Court by the authorities of the State Government. It is the duty of the Government to protect the interest of every law abiding citizen of the State and should not harass the persons like in the present case. The conduct of the authorities of the State Government in proceeding from Court to Court taking inconsistent plea/stand is nothing but abusing the process of the Court and the same is deprecated. The conduct and action of the authorities of the State Govt. amounts to violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is in accordance with Law. The conduct and action of the authorities of the State Govt. amounts to violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is in accordance with Law. The petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by the Government to the 1st respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the 1st respondent is at liberty to execute the same. The liberty is also reserved for the State Govt. to initiate Departmental enquiry against the concerned officer and recover the costs imposed. Ordered accordingly. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka forthwith to take appropriate action. Copy of this order shall also be sent to the 1st respondent for information.