Bangalore District Court
Smt.B.Sumithra vs The Commissioner on 5 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XL ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-41)
AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 5th day of January 2016.
PRESENT
SRI.JINARALAKAR. B.L.,
B.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.7576 / 2007
Plaintiff : SMT.B.SUMITHRA,
W/o.C.Narayana,
Aged about 28 yearrs,
R/o. No.1089/C,
9th Main, Kalidasanagar Slum Area,
Hosakerahalli, BSK III Stage,
Bengaluru-85.
(By Sri.G.A.Srikante Gowda, Adv.)
AND:
Defendants: 1. THE COMMISSIONER,
Bengaluru Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Bengaluru-20.
2. SMT.D.L.SHIVAMMA,
W/o. K.Venkatesha,
Aged about 40 years,
No.942, 1st Cross, 4th Main,
7th Block, BSK III Stage,
Kalidasanagar, Bengaluru-85.
3. SRI.CHELUVAIAH,
S/o. Late Cheluvaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
2 O.S.7576/2007
No.831, Kalidasanagara,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru.
(D1-By Sri.H.A.Kumar Swamy,
Adv.)
(D2, 3-Exparte.)
*****
i) Date of Institution of the
suit. 24.09.2007
ii) Nature of the suit. Permanent Injunction,
Mandatory Injunction &
Declaration.
iii) Date of the
commencement of 20.10.2011
recording of evidence.
iv) Date on which the
judgment was pronounced. 05.01.2016
v) Total Duration Year/s Month/s Days
08 03 11
***
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for Permanent Injunction restraining them, anybody claiming through or under them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property-All that piece and parcel of the schedule premises bearing No.1089/C, formed in Sy.Nos.95, 96, 121 3 O.S.7576/2007 and 122 of Hosakerehalli, Banashankari 3rd Stage, situated at 9th Main, Kalidasanagar Slum Area, Bengaluru-85, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 20 feet and bounded on East by: House No.1090/C, West by:
Road, North by: House No.1089/D and South by: House No.1089/B, to declare the Sale Deed dated 26.04.2007 bearing No.BDA-1-01706-2007-08 stored in CD No.BDAD 126 dated 28.05.2007 registered in the office of Sub-
Registrar, Additional District Registrar, Bengaluru as fraudulent document and not binding on her and directing the 1st defendant to consider her application dated 12.05.2003 for regularization of possession over the suit schedule property, etc. .2. The averments of the plaint in brief are that:
The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 10 years and prior to that her Aunt late Smt.Kala was in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 12 years. The plaintiff's Aunt constructed portion of the schedule house 4 O.S.7576/2007 during her lifetime and later on, the plaintiff improved the building by plastering, flooring, etc., by investing huge money. The plaintiff got electricity and water connection and same are standing in her name. The plaintiff family consists of herself, her husband, minor son and husband's sister and except the schedule property she has no other property. The plaintiff got Ration Card and Electoral roles to the schedule property and she belongs to Scheduled Caste.
The schedule property comes under the Slum Area belongs to BDA. The plaintiff having no shelter came in possession of the schedule property. Several other persons similarly placed with that of plaintiff have come to possession of remaining other properties in the same locality by constructing small residential building. The 1st defendant framed a scheme for the welfare of slum dwellers calling upon them to make application for regularization of their possession to their extents in the slum area. Thereafter, on 12.05.2003, the plaintiff made 5 O.S.7576/2007 an application to the 1st defendant requesting to regularize the schedule property in her name clearly stating that she is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property for more than 15 years.
As this was so, in the third week of September 2007 the defendants No.2 and 3 and their followers made illegal attempts to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the schedule property stating that the 1st defendant executed a Sale Deed in favour of 2nd defendant. The defendants have no manner of right, interest or possession over the schedule property. The plaintiff made enquiry in the office of the 1st defendant and learnt that the 2nd defendant by playing fraud and in collusion got the Sale Deed behind the back and the documents have been concocted with the help of defendant No.3-Cheluvaiah, who is local leader. The defendant No.3 is harassing the innocent poor people, who are residing in the slum area for unlawful gain and is in the habit of taking exorbitant money from the residents with 6 O.S.7576/2007 assurance that he is in touch of the officials of the 1st defendant and by using influence, he will get allotment from the BDA. The defendant No.3 earlier was a Bank employee and he removed from the service. The alleged Sale Deed in the name of 2nd defendant is void document and not in the lawful manner as per law.
The defendant No.3 is a land grabber and on enquiry, learnt that by influencing his money power and local leadership has managed to get 4 sites in the same locality in his name, in the name of his wife and two sons. It appears that the 2nd defendant also got the documents with respect to the schedule property with the help of said Cheluvaiah and the said documents are created for the benefit of Cheluvaiah.
The applications of several other persons, who are similarly placed with that of the plaintiff are pending for consideration before the Competent Authority and the plaintiff's application for regularization is pending 7 O.S.7576/2007 consideration. The plaintiff is legally entitled for regularization and entitled to continue over the schedule property. On enquiry, the plaintiff learnt that the BDA as per the Scheme of regularization regularized the possession and enjoyment of similarly placed persons. There is imminent danger to the schedule property at the hands of the defendants. The defendants along with their goonda elements made illegal attempts on 22.09.2007 at about 11.00 a.m. to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff approached the jurisdictional Police and reported the illegal activities of the defendants, but the police have declined for any action against the defendants, his henchmen stating that the matter is of civil in nature. The 2nd defendant is a stranger to the schedule property and not at all in the possession of the same and the documents pertaining in her name are all bogus, fraudulent and collusive documents. The 2nd defendant will not get any right or title with respect to the schedule property on the basis of collusive and fraudulent 8 O.S.7576/2007 documents and the same are not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. .3. The defendant No.2 did not appear before the Court inspite of service of summons by substitute service and the defendant No.3 did not appear before the Court inspite of service of summons and they placed exparte. In pursuance of summons, defendant No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement. The plaintiff got amended the plaint and the defendant No.1 also filed additional written statement.
.4. In the written statement, the defendant No.1 denied the material averments / allegations of the plaint regarding plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, constructing of portion of the schedule property, taking electric and water connection, no other property except the schedule property, other persons similar to the plaintiff coming to the possession of the remaining property, forming a Scheme for the Welfare of Slum 9 O.S.7576/2007 Dwellers calling upon them to make application for regularization, the plaintiff making application and entitlement for regularization, etc. Further the defendant No.1 contended that the schedule property belongs to BDA and the plaintiff cannot lay claim over the schedule property and cannot seeking a declaratory relief that the Sale Deed dated 26.04.2007 executed by the BDA as fraudulent document and not binding on her. Since the schedule property belongs to the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant Authority has got every right to allot the site and to execute absolute Sale Deed in respect of the schedule property and has rightly executed the absolute Sale Deed in favour of the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff does not get any right, title and interest over the schedule property and also does not get any right to resist to allot or execute the Sale Deed. Only to knock off the valuable property and to harass the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has filed the frivolous suit. The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff has not followed the mandatory provisions under Sec.64 of the BDA Act and on 10 O.S.7576/2007 this count, the suit is liable to be rejected. The plaintiff has not sought for declaration and failed to pay proper Court fee. The BDA has acquired land by issuing Preliminary Notification dated 09.05.1968 and the same has been confirmed and issued Final Notification dated 28.10.1971. The 1st defendant has passed an Award in respect of the acquired land and taken possession of the schedule property. When the land is acquired and possession is taken, the land vests with the State. The plaintiff does not have any legal right to remain in possession based on illegal structure and it cannot be termed as settled possession. The plaintiff is illegally claiming right over the public property. The plaintiff has failed to produce any piece of paper to prove her title nor prove her right to remain in possession and not produced any materials to show that she is in lawful possession. The land was acquired for the formation of layout called as B.S.K. III Stage, Bengaluru and after the formation of layout, the 1st defendant has allotted to the public and executed Sale Deed in favour of them. The 1st defendant has executed 11 O.S.7576/2007 Sale Deed in favour of 2nd and 3rd defendants in respect of the schedule property. The Ration Card, Electoral Roles produced are created by the plaintiff for the purpose of the case. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
.5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following Issues and Additional Issues framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants have illegally interfered with her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as alleged?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she has filed an application on 12.05.2003 before the 1st defendant BDA for regularization of her possession over the suit schedule property and she is entitled for regularization as alleged? 12 O.S.7576/2007
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Permanent Injunction and Mandatory Injunction sought against the defendants as prayed?
5. To what reliefs, if any, the partiers are entitled?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that Sale Deed dated 26.04.2007 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant is a fraudulent document and not binding on the plaintiff as alleged?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration sought for?
.6. In support of the case, the plaintiff examined as PW.1, got examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3, got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.74 and closed the side. The 1st defendant got examined its official-Sheristedar as DW.1, got marked documents at Ex.D.1 & Ex.D.2 and closed the side.
.7. Heard arguments on both side.
13 O.S.7576/2007.8. My answers to the above Issues & Additional Issues are:
Issue No.1 - Affirmative.
Issue No.2 - Affirmative.
Issue No.3 - Partly Affirmative.
Issue No.4 - Affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.1 - Affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.2 - Affirmative.
Issue No.5 - As per final order for the following:
REASONS .9. ISSUE Nos.1 & 2: As these Issues are connected to each other, I have taken both together for discussion for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
The plaintiff contended that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 10 years and prior to that her Aunt-Smt.Kala was in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 12 years, the defendants No.2 and 3 made illegal attempt to 14 O.S.7576/2007 interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, etc. Per contra, the 1st defendant in the written statement denied the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property.
To substantiate respective contentions of the parties, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1, who in her affidavit evidence stated regarding her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and prior to that same in possession and enjoyment of her Aunt-Kala, obtaining water, electricity and gas connection and further also stated regarding illegal attempts by the defendant No.3 with followers to dispossess from the schedule property, etc., by reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.74. The plaintiff also got examined a witness-waterman as PW.2 and another witness-neighbour as PW.3 who in their affidavit evidence also stated regarding plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Per contra, the 1st defendant got examined its official-Sheristedar as DW.1, who in his 15 O.S.7576/2007 affidavit evidence stated regarding acquisition of land bearing Sy.Nos.96/1, 96/2A and 96/2B of Hosakerehalli Village, taking possession, the plaintiff illegally claiming right over the suit schedule property and she is not in lawful possession of the same, etc., and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
It is not in dispute that the schedule property belongs to BDA-1st defendant. The plaintiff alleges that she is in possession of the schedule property and prior to that her Aunt-Kala was in possession of the same, etc., whereas the 1st defendant has denied the plaintiff's possession over the same. The plaintiff has produced Ration Card at Ex.P.1, Election Card at Ex.P.4 and another Ration Card at Ex.P.25, which supports her contention that she is in possession of the schedule property. More over, PW.3, who is the neighbour also stated that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. The defendants No.2 and 3 who alleged to are illegally interfered with the plaintiff's possession over the schedule property not 16 O.S.7576/2007 appeared before the Court and contested the suit of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the Court has to rely on the unchallenged the version of the plaintiff and documents produced by her. From the evidence of plaintiff / PW.1 and her witnesses-PWs.2 and 3 coupled with above referred documentary evidence go to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants No.2 and 3 illegally interfered with her possession. Hence, the plaintiff has proved that she is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and the defendants No.2 and 3 have illegally interfered with her possession over the suit schedule property, accordingly, I answered Issues No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
.10. ISSUE NO.3:- The plaintiff contended that she has filed an application on 12.05.2003 before the 1st defendant Authority for regularization of possession over the schedule property and she is entitled for regularization, etc. The plaintiff / PW.1 in her affidavit evidence also stated 17 O.S.7576/2007 regarding BDA formulating the scheme for regularization, she filing application for regularization, such applications filed by other occupants, 1st defendant already regularized the possession of the similarly placed persons in the locality, she is entitled for occupation on for with other occupants, etc. The plaintiff has produced copy of application given to BDA at Ex.P.10 and Acknowledgment at Ex.P.11, which shows she filing an application dated 12.05.2003 for regularization of the schedule property and same is acknowledged by the 1st defendant Authority. The plaintiff has produced copy of Mahazar Report at Ex.P.14, which shows drawing mahazar in respect of the schedule property and also mentioned that the plaintiff residing in the same. The plaintiff has produced the one more Mahazar at Ex.P.15, which shows drawing Mahazar and request of the plaintiff to issue Allotment Letter and Certificate, etc. DW.1 in his cross-examination also admitted that Ex.P.14-Certified copy of Report is submitted by the officials of BDA. The plaintiff also produced Copy of application filed by Smt.Krishnaveni at Ex.P.53, Copy of 18 O.S.7576/2007 Allotment Letter at Ex.P.61, Copy of Possession Certificate at Ex.P.62, Copy of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 30.08.2012 at Ex.P.63, which shows Smt.Krishaveni applying for regularization of site bearing No.1089/B, issuance of Allotment Letter, Possession Certificate and executing Sale-cum-Lease Agreement by the 1st defendant Authority in favour of said Krishnaveni. The plaintiff also produced Copy of Self-Declaration Affidavit of N.Raju at Ex.P.67, Copy of Possession Certificate dated 11.08.2010 at Ex.P.72 and these documents show said Raju swearing an affidavit regarding allotment of site, issuance of Possession Certificate and execution of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement by the 1st defendant Authority in favour of said Raju. The above referred documents support the contention of the plaintiff regarding 1st defendant Authority regularized the occupation of the other persons similarly placed with that of her. DW.1 in his cross-examination also admitted that Ex.P.10 bears office seal and may be true that the plaintiff has submitted the application to BDA for regularization of the schedule property as per Ex.P.10. 19 O.S.7576/2007
However, the entitlement of the regularization of the plaintiff's possession is subject to allotment rules and regulations. Hence, the plaintiff only proved that she has filed an application dated 12.05.2003 before the 1st defendant Authority for regularization of her possession over the suit schedule property, accordingly, I answered Issue No.3 partly in the affirmative. .11. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1:- The plaintiff contended that the defendant No.3 is a land grabber and by influencing has managed to get 4 sites in his name and in the name of wife and children, the 2nd defendant by playing fraud in collusion, get Sale Deed with the help of the defendant No.3-Cheluvaiah, who is local leader, the said Sale Deed is void document, etc. The plaintiff / PW.1 in her affidavit evidence also stated regarding the same. PW.2 in his affidavit evidence also stated that he has not seen the defendant No.2 at any point of time in the schedule property and not residing in the said area, the defendant No.3-Cheluvaiah misusing the leadership got 20 O.S.7576/2007 some allotment of sites beyond the back of several persons only for his illegal gains, etc. DW.1 in his cross- examination admitted that as per Allotment Rules, one site is to be allotted in favour of any one member of the family. The plaintiff has produced Possession Certificate dated 16.01.2007 in the name of Vinod Kumar S/o. Cheluvaiah at Ex.P.44, Possession Certificate dated 08.01.2001 in the name of C.Anil Kumar S/o. Cheluvaiah at Ex.P.45, Lease- cum-Sale Agreement dated 18.12.2000 in favour of Anil Kumar S/o. Cheluvaiah at Ex.P.46. Possession Certificate dated 09.07.1996 in the name of Smt.Indira D/o. Marikalaiah at Ex.P.47, Allotment Letter in the name of Smt.Indira D/o. Marikalaiah at Ex.P.48, Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 24.11.1995 in favour of Smt.Indira D/o. Marikalaiah at Ex.P.49 and these documents support the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.3 illegally got allotted sites in the name of wife and sons. .12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff during the course of arguments submitted that the Sale Deed in favour of 2nd 21 O.S.7576/2007 defendant obtained by playing fraud and same be treated as nullity and can be challenged before any Court, the defendants No.2 and 3 did not appear before the Court inspite of knowledge about the suit and the presumption arises as to if a person abstains from appearing before the Court an adverse inference can be drawn against him, etc., and also relied upon the following decisions reported in:
(1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein their Lordships held that:
"Judgment or decree obtained by fraud - To be treated as nullity and can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings."
(1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 573 wherein their Lordships held that:
"If a party abstains from entering the witness box, an adverse inference would arise against him."
In the instant case, the plaintiff has made an allegation of fraud against the defendants No.2 and 3 in getting the Sale Deed, but, the defendant No.2 did not 22 O.S.7576/2007 appear before the Court inspite of service of summons by subsisting service and so also the defendant No.3 did not appear before the Court inspite of service of summons and they abstains from appearing before the Court and not contested the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the presumption arises to draw an adverse inference against them and the allegations made against them appear to be true. In the written statement the 1st defendant stated about execution of the Sale Deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 in respect of the schedule property, but has not produced any documents to show that the schedule property is / was in possession of the 2nd defendant. The documents produced by the plaintiff show her possession over the schedule property and the defendants No.2 and 3 being not contested the suit, the evidence produced by the plaintiff is to be believed that the 2nd defendant by playing fraud obtained a Sale Deed with the help of defendant No.3 and the same is fraudulent document and not binding on her. Hence, the plaintiff proved that the Sale Deed dated 26.04.2007 executed by the 1st defendant in favour 23 O.S.7576/2007 of 2nd defendant is fraudulent document and not binding on her, accordingly, I answered Additional Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
.13. ISSUE NO.4 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.2:-
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for Permanent Injunction restraining them, anybody claiming through or under them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, to declare the Sale Deed dated 26.04.2007 bearing No.BDA- 1-01706-2007-08 stored in CD No.BDAD 126 dated 28.05.2007 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Additional District Registrar, Bengaluru as fraudulent document and not binding on her and directing the 1st defendant to consider her application dated 12.05.2003 for regularization of possession over the suit schedule property, etc. .14. The learned counsel for 1st defendant during the course of arguments submitted that the 1st defendant 24 O.S.7576/2007 Authority has acquired the land by issuing Preliminary and Final Notification and also taken possession of the schedule property and the schedule property being a subject matter of the acquisition proceedings, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to give declaration or bare injunction in respect of the acquired property, the suit itself is not maintainable, etc., and also relied upon a decision reported in:
2013 (3) Supreme Court Cases Supreme Court Cases 66, wherein their Lordships held that:
"Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss.1894 - Ss.4 and 6 r/w S.9 CPC - Maintainability of suit in civil Court when scheduled lands acquired under land acquisition proceedings - Remand of proceedings to trial Court without examining issue of maintainability - Propriety - Reiterated, Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose - By necessary implication, power of Civil Court to take cognizance under S.6 and subsequent proceedings - Civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare 25 O.S.7576/2007 injunction on invalidity of procedure contemplated under LA Act - Only right available to aggrieved person is to approach High Court under Art.226 and Supreme Court under Art.136 of Constitution with Self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power -On facts held, civil suit filed by plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 i.e. BDA, from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property was not maintainable."
The facts and circumstances of the present case are not applicable to the above cited decision. In the instant case, the plaintiff not pleaded regarding acquisition proceedings and also pleaded that the schedule property belongs to the BDA-the defendant No.1. The plaintiff having proved her possession over the schedule property and the Sale Deed dated 26.04.2007 is fraudulent document, is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, 26 O.S.7576/2007 declaration and mandatory injunction, accordingly, I answered Issue No.4 and Additional Issue No.2 in the affirmative.
.15. ISSUE NO.5:- In view of the reasons and discussion on the above Issues No.1 to 4 & Additional Issues No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed as under:
The Sale Deed dated 26.04.2007 bearing No.BDA-1-01706-2007-08 stored in CD No.BDAD 126 dated 28.05.2007 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Additional District Registrar, Bengaluru, is declared as fraudulent document and not binding on the plaintiff.
1st defendant is directed to consider the application dated 12.05.2003 filed by 27 O.S.7576/2007 the plaintiff for regularization of her possession over the schedule property.
The defendants No.2 and 3 or anybody claiming through or under them are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, the transcript print is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of January 2016).
(JINARALAKAR. B.L.) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: PW.1 -B.Sumithra W/o. C.Narayana.28 O.S.7576/2007
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Ration Card.
Exs.P.2 & 3 Electricity Demand Bills.
Ex.P.4 Election ID.
Ex.P.5 Demand Bill issued by BWSSB.
Ex.P.6 LPG Gas Connection Voucher.
Ex.P.7 Registration Card issued by BWSSB.
Ex.P.8 Sanctioned Letter issued by BWSSB.
Ex.P.9 Application given to BWSSB.
Ex.P.10 Copy of Application given to BDA for
Allotment of suit site.
Ex.P.11 Acknowledgment of BDA.
Ex.P.12 Caste Certificate issued by Tahsildar.
Ex.P.13 CD Report issued by the BDA.
Ex.P.14 Certified copy of Mahazar Report of the
BDA.
Ex.P.15 Certified copy of Mahazar report.
Ex.P.16 Endorsement issued by KPTCL.
Ex.P.17 & Electricity Bills.
Ex.P.18
Ex.P.19 Copy of Agreement with KPTCL.
Ex.P.20 to Demand Bills issued by BWSSB.
Ex.P.22
Ex.P.23 & Electricity Demand Bills.
Ex.P.24
Ex.P.25 Ration Card.
Ex.P.26 to Articles appearing in the Daily Newspaper.
Ex.P.28
Ex.P.29 Copy of Representation given to BBMP.
Ex.P.30 & Electricity Bill & Water Bill.
Ex.P.31
Ex.P.32 to Acknowledgments issued by BDA.
Ex.P.36
Ex.P.37 to Endorsements issued by BDA.
Ex.P.41
29 O.S.7576/2007
Ex.P.42 Copy of Note for the Authority Meeting obtained under RTI Act issued by the Deputy Secretary of BDA.
Ex.P.43 Photograph.
Ex.P.44 Possession Certificate dated 06.01.2007 obtained under RTI Act issued in the name of Vinodh Kumar S/o. Cheluvaiah.
Ex.P.45 Possession Certificate dated 08.01.2001 obtained under RTI Act issued in the name of C.Anil Kumar S/o. Cheluvaiah.
Ex.P.46 Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 18.12.2000 executed in favour of Anil Kumar S/o. Cheluvaiah obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.47 Possession Certificate dated 09.07.1996 obtained under RTI Act issued in favour of Smt.Indira D/o. Marikalaiah.
Ex.P.48 Allotment Letter obtained under RTI Act in the name of Smt.Indira D/o. Marikalaiah.. Ex.P.49 Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 24.11.1995 executed in favour of Smt.Indira D/o. Marikalaiah obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.50 Possession Certificate dated 19.12.2000 obtained under RTI Act issued in the name of Smt.Chikkamaramma.
Ex.P.51 Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 24.11.1995 executed in favour of Smt.Chikkamaramma obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.52 Allotment Letter in the name of Smt.Chikkamaramma obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.53 Copy of Application filed by Smt.Krishnaveni obtained under RTI Act. Ex.P.54 Copy of Mahazar Report dated 07.01.2010 obtained under RTI Act.
30 O.S.7576/2007Ex.P.55 Copy of Self Declaration Affidavit of Smt.Krishnaveni & Panduranga obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.56 Copy of representation of Smt.Krishnaveni and Panduranga obtained under RTI Act. Ex.P.57 Copy of Notice-1 dated 28.08.2012 obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.58 Copy of CD Report dated 17.05.2012 obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.59 Copy of Meeting Notes obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.60 Copy of Official Tippani obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.61 Copy of Allotment Letter dated 31.01.2012 obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.62 Copy of Possession Certificate dated 24.09.2012 obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.63 Copy of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 30.08.2012 obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.64 Copy of Mahazar Report dated 18.03.2007 obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.65 Copy of Mahazar Report dated 18.09.2008 obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.66 Copy of Mahazar Report dated 07.01.2010 obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.67 Copy of self-declaration affidavit of N.Raju obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.68 Copy of Specimen signature of allottee and attestation of Photo obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.69 Copy of CD Report obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.70 Copy of Meeting Notes obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.71 Copy of Possession Certificate dated 11.08.2010 obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.P.72 Copy of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 09.08.2010 obtained under RTI Act.
31 O.S.7576/2007Ex.P.73 Copy of Mahazar in respect of property of Krishnaveni obtained under RTI Act. Ex.P.74 Copy of Mahazar Report in respect of schedule property obtained under RTI Act.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 -G.V.Mohan Kumar S/o. Late Veerabhadraiah.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS: Ex.D.1 Copy of Notification U/Sec.6(1) of Land Acquisition Act. Ex.D.2 Copy of Notification U/Sec.16(2) of Land Acquisition Act. (JINARALAKAR. B.L.) XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.