Ballenahalli Grama Panchayath vs M B Vishakantegowda on 2 June, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ballenahalli Grama Panchayath vs M B Vishakantegowda on 2 June, 2011

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATEI3 THIS THE 92" DAY OF' JUNE, 2f7~.;':*";~-x1_¢' % 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ::As Ti*

R.S.A.N{§.,_§3é'2QO5A"' j_ A
BETWEEN:  ' *

1. BALLENAHALLI GRA2'\x:.g>§'j~ _ 
PANCHAYATH, BALLENAHALLE   
BOOKINAKERE HOBL1  '
KRPET TALUK.  '-_- 

BY ITS $EcREfr;;,RYgi';T'L'"  . "
MA1\rm'A-5751 4:3.» V  " 

2, BA,L:EN;:x'HA:.LI G";RJi?\,{}:._  _
PANCH2'a'r'A'['EL B;5J;L'EE'€,é§}EAli.I' -
BOOKINAKERE  .  
3:.R.1>E'§TAL:.}K _  ' " 
BY ITS' PRADHAN ' V 
 V. « M_AN3~;§*:«'f,zs;-'37: 40:;  ____ <4 .
    .. .APPEL£ANTS

'*:i7s_;>«.J$_R:,  _:.i2f;j-;:9':'A GQXNDA ADV}

2 ' " . :1\x£.El\_§fESfi'A1<A_NT'EGOWDA

._   5,«<'<:§ B{3R.Ai§NGEGOWDA

--  ;::{;A.:-jzé ABQEJT 49 wags

--   §v§;%<.2E;i:G{>NA}§A.::,LE 'x?EE.1A{}E
WEéfaégE.}ZT\E:%}iP:E,LE :><>$"€

 



m

BQOKYNAKERE HOBLE
K.R.PET TALUK

NLAJ\TD':'Aw5?} 40:. .REs:JDND;:'m«  ...._f  ;_. A' 

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

THIS RSA, FILED UNDER SECTf~QN::'i'8€}:'C3F_C1§C' THE }UD{Z}MEN'I' AND DEGREE. DATED 'i6_.O8.2QQ4;~_PAS~SEE} R.A.No.7.r'99 ON THE FILE 0? THE 1:~1:aL.c1V/'IL }uD:3D (:§.?;{;DN} AND --. * IMFC, SRYRANGAPATNA D:sM:~::,s;1:xIG 73.3 "APPEAL AND CQNFIRMING THE }L?D_GMENTe_...A:<.DDEGREE.__D1j,f8.1:2.1998 PASSED IN es N©.79z89vt:>;;~4._"§H~E FILE. 3:15" CML }UD<;E GRDN} AND jmc, KRISH?{ARAL<\j>E1T: ' 3 ' A. This appeaieeeixzing fest'i:.ea:iDg':h1s'd:;y,' the court delivered the foﬁowirlg ' In V V ' " V' This__ seeeﬁe.-«v.a_j3pe3§ve'_i?§diretted against the judgment and decree daDed4_u18, :f)'5e§;N0.79/89 passed by the Civﬂ Iudge (ID_;~5g4; :1_x{aR:PeL "a':1d,.V____}_D<ig:1':eDt and decree dated 16.8.2004 in §a:sed by the Pr1.Civﬂ Iudge {sr,Dn) at Sri1f3DgaD.3:D';§, " Appeﬂants are the defendants anal respondent is the ' Dﬁaizéziff Deéere the Tris} Ceurz. in this jmigmena: fer C€}I1'€€E1i€I1CE:

{De Darzies; are fefesryeé :0 {heir szams befere {he ";':"3laE Cami. Lu 9

3. Plaintiff ccmzends the: he is the owner in pgslseelségm and ezxjeymeni ef the plaint Schedule property. V. have no manner of right, title and lntereelstin the pllelei: sel:.e<:l_ul'e_V V pmperty. In the month of May tllzellelefeilelentvs interfere with the plaintiffs p0els«eV§l$i.0n and._e:1j0j:'mevnt "'05 the plain: schedule pr0per'tfgj_;"'~..l>Xtlltheat*?.ll3"1é,"«.tl1e plaintiff filed CLS.No.79;'89 for declaration-0l"t.ltle.Aend' i_5erl1f:e_1:en: injunctlen.

4. =5*llhe"~--:le'fef;.§laﬁ-1:3aeﬁtefecl"slppearance before the Trial Court; lllecl Q'w1?lr;e:1l1:'$l:a%"efeei"1t lnllefelia contending that in the year 195556', eﬁleveffxlfierii--;;;e'qjli:ed the plain: schedule property for ej«::e::3i0n elf ':\x/lléelhagimahalll. The Government in turn had .t3l<en pe33es--slb*rl of the plain: schedule property and handed over tlieeégttze' tlgie defendants ané they are in possession and €f}}{)}z'1£1€l3'll_' ef the same. Gr: these gireundg, the defenclante {he claim of plaintiffs G3} the basle ef pleadings, the Trial Ceurt framed the following isVsu,_é§~V..;an<:i éd.di:§<_;nVa.1 mfdr its * V Consideration:

2) £»Vf2ez'f2er 2"}2é:%_:z}n/g22}:--§_(efz'2"f ;2}c:~I;'e,sj ;?:'.:19 fawfizl pessesszbn over the wig ;%r0;§'€srf;':%$f 052 I326 dare of the 5:12)?" _ * 1'2) ' proves {he afiegecf ~ """ Hie-~v5:zfa'§ Scfzedufe prapezfzés; by {J28 ' é n ' ~--- ' 2191) w. ui§:" c§f'JcJ'z'6*I?

5 51 & v V u A.W72.<3xf[ﬁéf"z'}2Ve pfazﬁzzffprot/65 Z2219 zzﬁe to {be suit >. M ' « §Zi*!3c:dz1]e praperzjv?

SQ' v 'jgéfore the Trial Court, piaintiff examined two 'gvitneés.¢§' as PW.1 and P\V.2 and got marked EXs.P1 to P12.

" . "§1{:é"_«de'fendan:s examined {me 'witness as DVVJ and get:

A:':j:ér'1§ed E:{s.D1 to D8? On appreciation of pleadings} oral and u W%:i€}CiE}I1€E1E3f}' evidenge? the Trial C@u:*':: heid that the piaimiff rig {he §:s::2§:' in gggsssséga ané enjeymeni sf ths piaém: schedule property and the defenclapts have'v' interfere with the same. Comequef:«:ly;._'_i11idef~:li§:.jr:1p'c:gn_«=é:i:t judgment, the Trial C0urt"ll_de.gz:'ee<l'-v.ﬁl1Q stéfitl Aggrieved by this judgment 8I'll<§'vv._Cllé€1:€€ bf-t_l:eTrl;1l Court, the defendants ﬁled an on file of first Appellate Court. After hzéalriiigl first Appellate Court: framed jllé --i..:$__§;b1g:sideration:

2) lCc5'l%;:,.érred in ]20]dz'z2g 27113:', """ "c3:»:»*1:ié>2' and [3 wfizl possessjazz V ' ;0f"

2}} C0121? erred 1'12 fzofczlmg zhat;

l 522%? zizzerfered Wit]: {E16 5121': sclzedzzie '€Z1?eIr1'e5 by the cf€fe12c2'a12z:::.7 "1,a;ll2:}2;%§.z'f2er {bare 2'5 3}?/V ground so .z'12zerf"ere wit]:

' jzzalgmegzé 312d decree afzée ?72;fa[ C0az1':'?' :12} ll T0 wfzaz" .::Lrder?

mm, ' ' 6d.

6. On reappree4ia'ei_g3§" §de~:eria1 on record} the first Appellate vCou}:1" epieeai filed by the defendants a_1:d c{i:ifi:'::§ed€:}{e j;§dgi1§e::t"'and decree 0f the Trial Ce:_nift_. "'Hé:1?»:eV__:his_ dseeoﬁd ..a_ppe'a1 by the defendants. L frhe Vedd;<:_'b;e_:e:;der dated 23.2.2006 admitted the appeal on{}:e_vdf<.;}.1o£>=.éi1igvSuﬁstantial question of law:

,, 1?!/}':et]2ez;'e§§z2reC1ét1'0z2 ofevidence by the Cezzrts befew .

"1'5pe'1've2'5:e £235 resulted in 1I21'.5-Carriage 0fjzz5{1'Ce.7 pg-1 arguments and perused the entire appeal a is not in dispute that plain: schedule property A ":d:"ed:i:gdii;a}1}' belongs ta) the grand father of plaintiff by name . ' Qrigewda. After the demise cf erigina} ewner Girigowda, " sen Beraﬁngegewda, the fathe: ef piaintiff continued as ewdne: in peesesséen ef the plain: sﬁxedede pzegefty. Plaintiff contends that after the4"t};er:1itsev §.e't$_}itt:gegow*d,a, he being the son and thextmly Legs"!iirepresterttevtiftevg'eucceeded to the pieint schetiétlqe'égjpfgpggrtytéttdwhe"xtiotzttnued as owner in possessienief this contention, the p1aintifft'1*e1ied eettified copy of registered sale deed tiated "of Rights extract -ElX.P2, the prelimiﬁary=3:ectj:'d 'eX:teet §e EX.P3, the extract of index of tanes .t- %Ex.1i4.:Qte5 and the RTC extracts A EXP7 and P8. 011 . th_e't;tHe:th;i11d, the defendants contend that the Government éif. l1\'£§z_V"VS€)_"I'€~Z V' per Ex.D2, the Gazette notiﬁcation of pre'Iimin3I§t_1i0tiﬁCation and final notiﬁcation, acquired the plau1°3at"".'seh:edu}e property. This EXD2, the Gazette :1etiﬁr:V3ti0n also specifies that plaintiffs father M Beteiingegowda was the Anubhavadar and Khatedat of plaint sicheciuie prcapettyg From thig decumentary evidence etedueeé by 'bath ;;:«§eiI::.tiff and d€§€1"1§£:If}ESt it 13 ﬂeet that 8 platmt schedule property originally belongs to Gi:iggx§r;ia.§nd after his demise his 3011 Barahngeggwda contirmied' ﬁaitef his demise, plaintiff became the xjwrzser pi a'iz§: é£:;h_§:;:i1i}_Ve V' property.

9. Defendants théﬁ:i'~-- to preliminary and ﬁnal" as per EX.D2, the Governmenﬁ has :V§"<:"1"1edu1e property. They the same and in tum handcgci speciﬁes that after issui11g"r;r)j_1'fii<*ev'ﬁﬁgiéf. 9(1) of the Land Acquisition the possé$siQ:}___Qi' the scheduie property can be taken _ "W62: .."'e3{i:'},"ence is placed 011 record ':0 ShOW that £}<3.$;er::::1gn:é:AhTas issued Sectien 9(1) netice, The award and n9s3.r;:ti€3i'1'..16{1) netiﬁcation for having taken possession cf the schedxﬁe pmperty are not pmdwcedg Tlmugh the GG'ir'€E'E"iiE'1'}€E'iE is :30: 3 Vpariy is '?Eh€ pyataedirzgs éefefe ihe Trig} Court, there.» moi the defendants to summen the 3 Witness and to produce the cQnee.rhe;_f issued the notice under Sectiéh V Acquisition Act, passing of the award Section 16(1) for having taken theA.possess:io1_:V. win fheabsence of any such evidence on revt§:<3:*d;?..eV:it is ncftpessible to accept the contention of the ' ;defendan1:s' .that_purs11ant to the netiﬁcation under Ex.D2, the .GeVe1§t1§*§i_eht'.:;}1éd taken possession of the plain: schedule prope 'V ;;EX.D8 is the Mahazar dated 9.12.1960 drawn by the Shiweyer. According to the defendants, plaintiffs father Berelingegowda is 3 eignatory is the Mahazar EXD8. A heading ef Ex,D8 specifies that plaint schedule property was V ﬂsurveyeé ahd heundaries were fixed. This EXDS do not epe-;:éf§; the: ihe Qeeememeni haé taken peseeseéen ef {he Ii) ' plain: schedule propﬁehrttyh' h'E1't)1T1 p__1ait1tiff's father Botalingegowdaif N0 {s't'he:'~V§2t;:'ﬁAet':2r;e isgﬁiaced. on record to shew that..h1 _._tuj:n' handed ever the psssessicni of the platm "Sa:i'hetit31e ptjoperty to the defendants.

' --the defendants, the land was acquitetiiti the 34-:-at" the possession was taken in the yeat'19_60. '1f.,thaVt"'is hvsoihthete is no evidence on recetd to 3 V' _ Vvftom x'1968"ti11 the date of filing the suit before the V T ciefendants exercised right of ewnetship and 'pés§essiOiii'L:9€jet the piaint schedule prepetty. In the absence ofevidence and by considering the index of lands, the extracts, the preliminary tecerd of right, both the eefdtts beiow comiuttentiy held that plaintiff is if: possessitm end enjoyment of the plain: schedtﬁe ptepettfg as its owttet. V "This eenetttteztt ﬁhdtng sf bath the courts below i$ supported by evidencxéfon ﬁ11d ﬁo v justifiable ground to interfere witﬁ £21-lo x z _

12. Ad.o;iittedI;§}V;' is not a party before the. the acquisition proceedinigs, if :i}}e passed an Award and had Sooiion 16 of Land Acquisition Act, t:he1i.to take appropriate action in cordaﬁée i>x*ith'1aW. this judgment will not bind the overnment. . --_ -, 'For theV're_;iSons :stated above, I answer the substantia} oflaw iiiWf1egative. Accordingly, the appeal is ﬂégjfa EEEDQE V =:f};:§_'f,E§

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court