Bangalore District Court
Smt. Mangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2019
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet
for
Judgme
PRESENT: SMT. PRASHANTHI.G.
B.A (Law) LL.B.,
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 17 th day of December 2019
PLAINTIFFS: 1. Smt. Mangamma, aged about 65
years, wife of late Narayanappa.
2. Smt. Lakshmamma, aged about 65
years, wife of Bayyanna,
3. Sri Pillappa, aged about 68 years,
son of late Venkataramanappa.
4. Sri Muniramu, aged about 45
years, son of late
Doddamuniyappa.
5. Sri Venkateshappa, aged about 82
years, son of Kariyappa.
6. Smt. Thippamma, aged about 69
years, wife of Bayyanna.
All are residing at
Doddakallsandra village,
Bangalore south taluk,
represented by their general power
of attorney holder Sri
2 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc
.
H.L.Lakshmikantha, aged about 38 years, son of H.S.Lakshmaiah, residing at No.57, Banashankari 1st stage, 4th cross, 2nd block, Bangalore-560 050.
[By Sri. N.R.R. Advocate] /v e r s u s/ DEFENDANTS: 1. State of Karnataka, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, M.S.Building, Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authroity, Kumara park West, Bangalore-560 020.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560 020.
D1 - Exparte D2, D3 - By Sri VSK, Advocate Date of institution of the : 30/3/2007 suit Nature of the suit : For declaration and injunction Date of commencement of : 6/1/2014 recording of the evidence Date on which the : 17/12/2019 Judgment was pronounced.
3 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
: Year/s Month/s Day/s Total duration 12 8 18 (Prashanthi. G) XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
Plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration declaring that the defendants have given up the acquisition of plaintiffs' lands morefully described in the schedule as per its endorsement dated 14/3/2001 issued by the defendants 2 and 3 and consequently grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any one through them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands respectively in any manner, including that of dispossession; and direct the defendants to pay the cost of these proceedings.
2. In brief, the plaintiff's case is as under:
This suit has been filed jointly by the plaintiffs since there is a common question of law and facts 4 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
involved in their claims against the defendants and common documents are involved besides the reliefs sought for also. The first plaintiff is in possession of the survey no.16 measuring 38 guntas, second plaintiff is in possession of part of the sy.no.15 measuring 32 guntas, 3rd plaintiff is in possession of part of survey number measuring 2 acres, 4 th plaintiff is in possession of part of survey no.15 measuring 1 acre, 5th plaintiff is in possession of part of survey no.15 measuring 2 acres 12 guntas and 6 th plaintiff is in possession of part of survey no. 15 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas. It is submitted that sy.no.15 and 16 are the part and parcel of village Doddakallasandra, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk. These lands were granted by the competent authority under the Mysore Land Revenue Code under grow more food scheme to the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The copies of the records of the rights from 1991 to 1996 shows that plaintiffs are in possession of the lands. The portion of the land held by them are not gomala lands. 5 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
They were granted by the Deputy Commissioner to the plaintiff. All the revenue records stands in the name of the plaintiffs.
The second defendant Bangalore Development Authority had issued a preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act proposing to acquire the lands for the development and formation of Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar, 9th phase and same was notified in the official gazette dated 17/11/1988. A copy of the gazette shows that sl.no. 510 and 511 clearly shows that the lands were acquired for the purpose of Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar, 9th phase. The plaintiffs who were the kathedars and anubhavadars of the land were not issued with any notice as contemplated under Section 17 (5) of the Act to enable the plaintiffs to file their objections which is mandatory as provided under law. On perusal of revenue records, it is clear that survey no.15 is a gomala land and other names which are unconnected with the land such as 16 and 17 clearly 6 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
shows that they were also reserved for the purpose of gomala. The plaintiff did not have notice or opportunity to file their objections as their names did not appear in the preliminary notification and hence they did not file their objections to the notification of the same. The second defendant recommended to the first defendant for the issuance of declaration and the first defendant without application of mind had issued declaration under Section 19 of the Act which came to be published in the official gazette dated 27/7/91 in the notification No.HUD 553 MNX 19.
Several writ petitions were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka questioning the legality and validity of the acquisitions dated 22/7/1991 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide its order dated 27/9/96 was pleased to quash the notification issued under Section 19 of the Act and reserved the liberty to the second defendant to continue the acquisition proceedings in accordance with the law. Even in the final notification the land in 7 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
sy.nos. 15 and 16 were shown as gomala lands and plaintiff's name did not find place in the said notification. Even in the notification issued by the first defendant dated 18/9/1997, it is clear that sy.no.16 has gomala land along with the other survey nos. 28/6 and 28/7. In the writ petition, the Hon'ble Court observed that those persons who have not approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka questioning the legality and validity of the earlier declaration are bound by the declaration issued by the first defendant dated 18/7/1997. Since plaintiffs name were not shown in the notification the lands were shown as gomala, they are in continuous possession and cultivating their lands which is evidenced in revenue documents. Hence the plaintiff sought for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the said notification in so far as sy.no.15 is concerned and regarding the sy.no.16 is concerned in writ petition No.34563 to 34565, 34567 to 69. The court held that since there is a delay and latches on the part of the petitioners, the same was 8 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
dismissed. In the said writ petitions, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed the order stating that in view of the declarations having been quashed, it is just and appropriate to permit the petitioners to file their objections / representations before the Land Acquisition Officer within 30 days from today and the respondents may pursue the acquisition of the lands in question, if they are so advised, after considering the representations in accordance with the Section 18 clause 1 of the Act. According to the plaintiffs, they have submitted their representations in time as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the acknowledgements issued in this behalf are misplaced by them. However, the defendants 2 and 3 were fully aware that portions of the lands owned by them are their absolute properties and not gomala lands. Inspite of the above facts the first defendant issued a final notification dated 7/10/1999 which was published on 11/10/1999 without giving any explanations and without examining the documents, 9 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
the first defendant stated that sy.no.15 as government and sy.no.16 as gomala land. The said notification came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the second week of January 2007 when the officials of the defendants 2 and 3 tried to form roads on their lands.
The persons by name Muniyappa, Hanumanthappa and Anjanappa filed a suit in O.S.No.9244/97 against the second defendant and two others praying to grant permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property in the portion of the sy.no.17 which is adjacent to the sy.no.16. During the pendency of the suit, a settlement was arrived between the parties and accordingly the second defendant issued an endorsement dated 14/3/2001 stating that if the persons concerned agrees to give up land required for the formation of land free of cost, the rest of the land will be denotified. Accordingly the plaintiff in that suit filed a memo on 30/1/2004 for the dismissal of the suit. It is relevant to submit that 10 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
subsequent to orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 2/9/1998, the plaintiffs and other 13 persons have been moved before defendant no.2 and 3 for dropping of the further proceedings in respect of the lands bearing sy.nos. 15, 16 and 17 of Doddakallasandra. One Narayanappa and plaintiff also submitted their representation praying to drop the further proceedings regarding the acquisition of the lands. The plaintiff also agreed to give up their land for the formation of the road free of cost. The second defendant issued an endorsement dated 14/3/2001 intimated to all the plaintiffs stating that out of sy.no.15, 16 and 17 if the plaintiffs are going to give up the land required for the formation of BDA Road to the Bangalore Development Authority then the plaintiffs and others are allowed to retain the balance of the land to themselves and it was acceptable to the BDA. Believing the promise given by the BDA, the plaintiff gave their land for the formation of the road. It is during the second week of January 11 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
2007, the officials of the defendants intimated that they have been instructed to level the land and form the internal roads and the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants were not acted as per the terms of the proposals made earlier. Thereafter, on enquiry by the plaintiff, it came to their knowledge that the balance lands in the sy.no.15, 16 and 17 were not denotified.
Without verifying the revenue documents, the defendants 2 and 3 mechanically held that the schedule lands are gomala lands inspite of the documents and earlier orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Even after being known that the lands are granted lands the defendants did not show the names of the plaintiff in the final notification nor award has been passed in their names. The defendants are trying to take over the plaintiffs lands without compensation and are trying to dispossess them from their own land. As per the plaintiffs the schedule lands are not the part of alleged gomala 12 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
lands but they were privately owned by the plaintiffs for the purpose of the cultivation, excluding the road portion remaining portions were in the physical possession of the plaintiffs even today. Since it is not lawfully acquired, the defendants are not entitled to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession. Inspite of that, the defendant no. 2 and 3 are trying to brand it as part of the gomala lands and attempting to dispossess them from the suit schedule lands without giving the notice. On 16/1/2007 and also after the disposal of the writ petition on 5/3/2007, in the morning of 7/3/2007, the officials of the second defendant came near the schedule property and inspected the spot and they are bent upon taking co-ersive methods against the plaintiff to change the nature of the lands. Hence without any alternative remedy plaintiffs filed this suit.
The cause of action arose on 5/3/2007 and subsequently on 7/3/2007 which is within the jurisdiction of this court.
13 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
3. After the service of the summons, defendants 2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement. Defendant no.1 did not appear and contest the case of the plaintiffs. Hence he is placed exparte.
4. The main contentions of the written statement filed by defendants 2 and 3 are as under:
At the outset the suit of the plaintiff itself is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under Section 64 of BDA Act. The suit is also liable to be dismissed since already the acquisition proceedings have given up in view of the fact that the property acquired by the defendants 2 and 3 is in accordance with law. As per the preliminary notification dated 17/11/1988 which was published in the gazette on 5/1/1989, 16 acres 22 guntas in sy.no.15 and 13 acres 34 guntas in sy.no.16 of Doddakallasandra village was notified for acquisition by the defendants.
In this regard a final notification was also issued on 22/7/1991. As per the order dated 31/8/1998 and 14 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
2/9/98 in writ petitions 34557 to 34669 / 1997, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the declarations giving liberty to the respondents to pursue the acquisition of the lands after considering the objections. In pursuance of the above order on 26/4/1999, the authority overruled the objections and moved the government to issue fresh notification. A final notification was issued dated 7/10/99 in this regard. After the final notification an award was also passed on 7/8/2006 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to an extent of 10 acres 30 guntas in sy.no.15 and 5 acres 26 guntas in sy.no.16 and same was approved by the Deputy Commissioner. As per the mahazar dated 19/8/2006, the possession was taken by the defendants and the same was handed over the engineering section for the formation of the layout.
The fact of taking possession on 19/8/2006 was notified under Section 16 (2) of BDA Act and the same was published in Karnataka Gazette dated 18/1/2007 for the public information. The BDA employees 15 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
welfare association had requested the government to allot the lands for the formation of the layouts to its members in bulk and considering their request, the government as per its order dated 19/4/2006 accorded approval for the allotment of the lands. Accordingly, 8 acres 26 guntas in sy.no.15, 5 acres 22 guntas in sy.no.16 and 18 acres 34 guntas in sy.no.17 of Doddakallasandra village was allotted to the BDA employees welfare association for the allotment of the sites to its members. Accordingly, sale deed was also executed in favour of the society on 9/11/2006. The possession of the land was also delivered to the said Society. About 95% of the layout work, in pursuance of the said allotment has already been completed by leveling the land forming roads and drains etc., The society had also proposed to allot sites to its members in the first week of April 2007. The averment that the first plaintiff is in possession of sy.no. 16 measuring an extent of 38 guntas, the 2nd plaintiff is in possession of part of sy.no. 15 measuring an extent of 16 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
32 guntas, the third plaintiff is in possession of part of sy.no. 15 measuring an extent of 2 acres, the fourth plaintiff is in possession of part of sy.no. 15 measuring an extent of 1 acre, the fift plaintiff is in possession o fpart of sy.no. 15 measuring an extent of 2 acres 12 guntas and the 6th plaintiff is the owner in possession of part of sy.no. 15 measuring an extent of 2 acres 32 guntas are all specifically denied as false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The land in sy.no. 15, 16 and 17 of Doddakallasandra village are gomal lands and the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property. It is false that the lands in sy.no. 15 and 16 of Doddakallasandra village held by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same.
The averment that the suit lands were granted by the competent authority to the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title is specifically denied as false and plaintiff is put to strict proof the same. It is submitted 17 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
that these defendants have reliably learnt that the documents are fabricated in respect of the land in sy.no. no.15, 16 and 17 and the several persons are wrongfully claiming that they are in possession of the suit schedule lands whereas the above survey numbers are all Sarkari Gomal Lands. The further averment that the lands were granted under "Grow More food" scheme by the Deputy Commissioner is also specifically denied as false. Further the averment that the names of the plaintiffs are mutated by revenue authorities is specifically denied as false.
The Office of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District under its communication dated 28/4/2007 in RRT (2) CR 14/2005-06 have informed these defendants with regard to lands in sy.no. 15, 16 and 17 of Doddakallasandra village acquired by the BDA several persons have fabricated documents and are claiming that they are in possession which is false and that the BDA should not pay the compensation amount in favour of any such persons. 18 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
The averment made this defendant had issued preliminary notification is ture, however the averment that the plaintiffs are khathedars and anubhavadars of the schedule lands and that they were not issued notice as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the act is specifically denied as false. The plaintiffs are neither the khathedars nor the anubhavadars.
The averments made in para 8, 9 and 10 of the plaint that the subject lands shown as gomala are contradictory to grant certificate is specifically denied as false. The averments regarding filing of writ petitions and the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is true. It is also true that the defendant was reserved with the liberty to continue with the acquisition proceedings in accordance with law. The averments made in para 11 of the plaint, the defendants submit that the plaintiffs are neither kathedars nor the anubhavadars in respect of the lands in sy.no. 15, 16 and 17 hich is a gomal land 19 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
and hence the question of plaintiffs being entitled to any award amount as claimed does not arise at all.
The averement that a suit in O.S.No.9244/97 was filed against these defendants by Sri Muniyappa, Sri Hanumanthappa and Sri Anjanappa is true. The averment that the 2nd defendant had issued an endorsement dated 14/3/2001 is also true. However it is false that the plaintiffs are entitled for any benefit including compensation, under the said endorsement which does not confer any title in favour of the plaintiffs. As already submitted as per the communique issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, the land is a gomal land which is not granted in favour of any person/s and hence the plaintiffs are not eligible to claim any enefit under the endorsement dated 14/3/2001 much less the declaration sought for.
Further defendants specifically denied the averments made in para 14, 15 and 16 of the plaint as false and it is submitted that one Pillappa claiming to 20 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
be grantee had filed W.P.no.6166/2007 questioning the notification dated 7/10/1999 which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by order dated 20/06/2007.
The defendants denies the averments made in para 17 and 18 of the plaint that the declaration was issued by these defendants without verifying whether the lands in question are gomal lands or not. As submitted above, it is clear from the revenue records that the land is a government land and the plaintiffs are claiming on the basis of fabricated documents.
The averments made in para no.18 of the plaint that the plaintiffs are the full and absolute owners in physical possession of the suit schedule property are dnied as false. It is further denied that they are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs herein have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and their claim the suit schedule property is not a gomal land is absolutely false. The averment that the above 21 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
defendants attempted to enter the suit schedule property and dispossess them is all specifically denied as false. As already submitted the suit schedule property has been acquired by this defendant in accordance with law and the possession has already been taken as narrated above. All other plaint averments made by the plaintiffs regarding interference etc., are all false, baseless and factious and it is submitted that they aremade only for the purpose of obtaining interim relief from the Court. There is no cause of action for filing the above suit and the cause of action alleged is fictitious and false. Therefore, these defendants prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues for consideration:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants have given up the acquisition of suit schedule land by issuing endorsement dated 11/3/2001?
22 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
(2) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of defendants in the suit schedule property?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed?
(5) Whether suit is bad for want of notice under Section 64 of B.D.A.Act?
(6) What decree or order?
6. In order to prove the case, the general power of attorney of the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked 55 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P55 and closed his side of evidence. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 is examined and got marked 13 documents as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D13 and closed their side of evidence.
23 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
7. Heard both sides and perused the entire records of the case. Both the counsels produced citations in support of their arguments.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No. 1) ............In the negative; Issue No. 2) ............In the negative; Issue No. 3) ............In the negative; Issue No. 4) ............In the negative; Issue No. 5) ............In the affirmative; Issue No. 6) ............As per final order for the following:
9. ISSUE NO.1 : It is the specific case of the plaintiff that even though the government has issued notification with regard to the acquisition of the suit schedule property, it is not with regard to the suit schedule land. In this regard, advocate for the plaintiff argued that though in sy.no. 15, 16 and 17 are added in the notifications issued by the government in Ex.D5 and Ex.D6, the entire extent of land in sy.no. 15, 16 is 24 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
not added. Further, as per the Ex.D7 which is the award passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the total extent of the land acquired in sy.no. 16 is only 20 guntas and in sy.no. 15/2 i.e., only 2 acres of Doddakallasandra village. Further, in the page no.7 of Ex.D7, it has been stated that out of the sy.no. 15, 10 acres 30 guntas of karab land situated in Doddakallsandra village of Bengaluru South taluk has been declared by the government to be needed for J.P.nagar 9th stage layout scheme. Further, in para no.18 of that award, it has been specifically stated that the award has been passed for 10 acres 30 guntas and restricted to 5 acres 32 guntas. It is pertinent to note here that the total extent of sy.no. 15 is 16 acres 22 guntas. Further, as per Ex.D8 which is the mahazar prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer it has been clearly stated that 10 acres 30 guntas of land in sy.no. 15 has been taken in possession as per the Land Acquistion proceedings. This has been further clarified in Ex.D9 which is the 25 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
details of the land which has been taken in possession by the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings. In Ex.P10, it has been stated that total extent of award passed in sy.no. 16 of Doddakallsandra village is for 5 acres 26 guntas and restricted 8 acres 8 guntas. Here also the total extent of sy.no. 16 is 13 acre 34 guntas. This has been further clarified in Ex.D11 and Ex.D12 documents. The counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that the suit schedule property item no.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 which are covering both the sy.no. 15, 16 of Doddakallasandra village are not added either in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer nor they were published in the official gazette. In this regard, the counsel for the defendants vehemently argued that even the plaintiffs also challenged the preliminary notification and final notification issued by the government for acquisition of the property in J.P.nagar 9th phase. In this regard he has produced Ex.D2, Ex.D3 and also Ex.D4. Ex.D2 to Ex.D4 are the writ petitions filed challenging the notifications issued 26 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
by the government for acquisition of the schedule property. I have carefully gone through Ex.D2 wherein plaintiff no.3 of this case has challenged the acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.6166/2007 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly held that there is no grant of sy.no. 15 in Doddakallasandra village which was a gomal land. Further, though the petitioners in that writ petitions (plaintiff no.3) contended in that writ petitions that they have obtained the grant certificate with regard to the suit schedule property from the Deputy Commissioner, the grant itself is held to be fraudulent by the court. Para no.12 of Ex.D2 clearly states that "Before the Land Acquisition Officer, it is the specific case of the petitioners that these lands were granted to them by the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South taluk on 25/6/1979. Today, in the documents which they have produced before the court, they claim these lands by way of the grants which is dated 15/12/1955. What is produced is xerox copy 27 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
which is not readable and the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to state where the original of the said document lies as on today. At any rate this document was not produced before the Land Acquisition Officer in the enquiry under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act nor has produced the grant certificates dated 25/6/1979 on which they rely." Further, from the communication of the Deputy Commissioner to the Divisional Commissioner it has been clearly stated that as per the records sy.no. 15, 16 and 17 of Doddakallasandra village are classified as gomal lands. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly discussed the validity of the grant certificate in paragraph of Ex.D2 and held that "As on 31/1/1979, there was no grant of sy.no. 15 which was a gomal land. Therefore, it has to be only subsequent to that date and therefore this annexure- A, the grant certificate which is dated 29/10/1955 is on the face of it, a fabricated document for the purpose of this case ...........". 28 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
With this observation, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition of the plaintiffs with cost of Rs.10,000/-. It is important to note here that in the instant case also the plaintiff is claiming the right on the basis of the grant certificate. However that grant certificate is not produced before this court. Further, the plaintiff contends that on the basis of the endorsement issued by the BDA the schedule lands are not included in the acquisition proceedings. However, even after repeated requests that endorsement was also not produced before the court. The counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that the suit schedule properties are not included in the acquisition proceedings. However from the documents produced by the defendants as per Ex.D2, Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 it is clear that the plaintiffs of instant case have challenged the acquisition proceedings and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has clearly observed that whatever the rights the plaintiffs are having over the suit schedule property by virtue of the grant 29 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
certificate itself is fake and therefore they are not entitled to have any right over the same. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that even the suit schedule lands are also the part of the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, I answer issue no.1 in the negative.
10. ISSUES 2 & 3: As per the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property are in the possession of them by virtue of grant certificate which was granted to them under the Mysore Land Revenue Code under the scheme of 'Grow More Food'. In order to support the claim of the plaintiff, he has not produced the alleged grant certificate before the court. Further, he has produced Ex.P11, Ex.P10, Ex.P13, Ex.P14 which is the mutation register and RTC extracts. It is important to note here that records of rights and mutation register are not the title deeds of suit schedule property. Moreover, RTC does not confer conclusive right over the property at any cost of time. 30 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
Though the plaintiffs contend that they were in the possession of the suit schedule property on the basis of the grant certificate the same was not produced before the court. Already the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Ex.D2 in para no.12 clearly observed that there is no grant with respect to sy.no. 15 to any person since sy.no. 15, 16 and 17 of Doddakallasandra village are gomal lands. Further, in that writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly held that the copy of the grant certificate produced by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is fabricated one. In the instant case also, the plaintiffs claim right over the suit schedule property by virtue of the same grant certificate which is not produced before the court. Merely because the names of the ancestors of the plaintiffs are entered in the RTC one cannot come into conclusion that suit schedule lands are in the possession of the plaintiffs. Except the RTC and mutation extracts, no other documents are produced 31 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
by the plaintiffs in order to show that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. Further from the above discussions, it is very clear that already suit schedule properties are acquisitioned by the government for the purpose of formation of the layout. Already the Land Acquisition Officer took the possession of the suit schedule property and handed over to the same to the Engineering Section for the purpose of the construction work. From the above discussions, it is very clear that the plaintiffs are not in the possession of the suit schedule property and it is the government who is in the possession of the same.
11. Since the plaintiffs failed to prove their lawful possession over the suit schedule property, whatever the interference they have alleged in their plaint by the defendants is not a interference at all, because the acts of the defendants are as per the procedure established by law and only after the 32 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
completion of the acquisition proceedings. Under the above circumstances, the allegation of interference does not arise at all. Accordingly, I answer issues 2 and 3 in the negative.
12. ISSUE NO.5: One of the contentions taken by the defendants is that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of statutory notice under Section 64 of BDA Act. According to Section 64(1) of the Act, no suit or other proceedings shall be commenced against the authority or any member or any officer or servant of the authority or against any person acting under the direction of the authority, the member or officer of the authority for anything done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of the act or a rule regulation or byelaw made thereunder without giving to the authority one months previous notice in writing of the intended suit or other proceedings and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the accrual of the cause of such suit or other proceedings nor after 33 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
tender of sufficient amends. On going through the entire order sheet, it is clear that the plaintiff has filed IA No.2 under Section 64 of the BDA Act in order to dispense with the issuance of the notice and this court after hearing on IA No.1 and 2 registered the case and suit summons was issued to the defendants accordingly. No doubt, as per Section 64 of the Act, it is mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to issue notice to the BDA before filing of the suit. However, Section 64 (2) of the BDA Act clearly tells that if a suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the authority, then the same may be instituted with the leave of the court without serving any notice as required by sub section (1). Under the above circumstances, on perusal of entire court records, it is clear that in the instant case plaintiff filed application under Section 64 of the BDA Act for dispensing the notice and therefore the contention of the defendant that the suit does not survive for the want of cause of 34 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
action does not holds good. Accordingly, I answer issue no.5 in the affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO. 4: The suit of the plaintiff is one for declaration stating that the defendants have given up the acquisition of the plaintiffs land detailed in the schedule as per the endorsement dated 14/3/2001 issued by the defendants 2 and 3 and consequently to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anyone from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands in any manner including that of the dispossession. From the discussions in issue no.1, it is clear that the schedule properties are also acquired for the purpose of formation of the Jayaprakash Narayan Nagar 9th phase. The document from which the plaintiffs are claiming the ownership over the property is not produced before the court. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly stated in Ex.D2 that the alleged grant certificate is a 35 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
fabricated document. The endorsement dated 14/3/2001 issued by the defendant no.2 and 3 is not produced before the court. The only contention taken by the plaintiff is that the endorsement dated 14/3/2001 is misplaced is not believable. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff utterly failed in proving the title of the suit schedule property in his favour. Further, the possession is also not proved and hence he cannot claim the permanent injunction over the suit schedule property. As per the documents produced by the defendants, already the Land Acquisition Officer took the possession of the suit schedule property and handed over the same to the engineering section. Under the above circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff that he is in the possession of the schedule property is not correct. It is true that a person who wants the permanent injunction from the hands of the court has to prove his possession over the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiffs failed in this 36 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc .
regard. Accordingly, I answer issue no.4 in the negative.
14. ISSUE NO.6: From my above discussions and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
*** [Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 17 th day of December 2019.] [PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge. BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 H.L. Lakshmikantha
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 K.Y. Ramesh
37 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc
.
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 Copies of 6 General Power of
to Attorney executed by the
Ex.P10 plaintiffs, 3 survey tippani of
Sy.No.15, 16, 17 of
Doddakallsandra village, revisional settlement akarband of the said lands.
Ex.P11 Certified copy of mutation register to extracts.
Ex.P14
Ex.P15 RTC Extract
Ex.P16 Certified copy of the RTC extract
Ex.P17
Certified copy of mutation register to extract Ex.P19 Ex.P20 to RTC extracts Ex.P41 Ex.P42 The order of the Assistant Commissioner in LRF proceedings dated 28/5/2005 Ex.P43 to Encumbrance certificates Ex.P55
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D1 Authorsation letter dated
12/11/2019
Ex.D2 Certified copy of the order in
W.P.No.6166/07
Ex.D3 Certified copy of the orders in
W.P.No.901/07
38 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc
.
Ex.D4 Certified copy of the orders in
W.P.No.2134/07
Ex.D5 Certified copy of the department
notification
Ex.D6 Certified copy of the gazette
notification dated 17/11/1999
Ex.D7 Certified copy of the award of land
acquisition officer dated 7/8/2006 Ex.D8 Certified copy of mahazar Ex.D9 Certified copy of the details of land taken in possession by BDA Ex.D10 Certified copy of award dated 7/8/2006 Ex.D11 Certified copy of mahazar Ex.D12 Certified copy of the details of the land taken in the possession by the BDA Ex.D13 Certified copy of notification under Section 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
[PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
17/12/2019 P-NRR D1 - Exparte D2, D3 - VSK For Judgment..
............Judgement pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
4 CT0028_O.S._2741_2007_Judgment_.doc 0 .
-