Bangalore District Court
Mr.Srinivasan Balasubramanian vs Smt. Vijayalakshmi Patil on 1 February, 2023
KABC010143802018
IN THE COURT OF THE VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.No.19)
Dated: This the 1 st day of February, 2023
PRESENT
SMT.S.G.SUNITHA, B.Sc., LLB.,
VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.3825/2018
Plaintiffs : 1. Mr.Srinivasan Balasubramanian
S/o Mr.S. Balasubramanian,
Aged about 49 years,
R/o No.807, Roosevelt Ave.,
Redwood City, CA-94061, USA.
2. Mrs. Karpagam Rajagopalan
W/o Mr. Srinivasan Balasubramanian,
Aged about 49 years,
R/o No.807, Roosevelt Ave.,
Redwood City, CA-94061, USA.
Both rep. by their GPA Holder
Sri. S. Balasubramanian,
S/o Sri. M.R.Srinivasan,
Aged about 76 years,
R/o D2, "Ashok Enclave",
18, 1st Avenue, Ashok Nagar,
Chennai - 600 083.
(By Sri.K.N. Phanindra., Advocate)
2
OS.NO.3825/2018
V/S
Defendants : 1. Smt. Vijayalakshmi Patil
W/o Sri. Chandrashekar Patil,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o No.G2, 'Sri Shankara Mansion',
N-23, L.G. Halli, Dollars Colony,
RMV 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560 094.
2. Sri. Deveeda Raj @ David C
S/o Late Sri. D. Chowrappa,
Aged about 63 years,
R/o Mariyannana Palya,
Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
3. Smt. Reena Lethisiya
D/o Sri. Daveeda Raj @ David C,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o Mariyannana Palya,
Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
4. Sri. Denzi Lawrance
S/o Sri. Daveeda Raj @ David C,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o Mariyannana Palya,
Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
Defendant No.2 to 47 are also at
C/o 'D Souza Manor',
No.215/2 'D' Block,
Sahakara Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 092.
(By Sri.A.N. Anand., Advocate)
3
OS.NO.3825/2018
Date of institution of suit 31-05-2018
Nature of the suit Declaration and Injunction
Date of commencement of 27-07-2022
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment was 01-02-2023
pronounced
Days Months Years
30 03 04
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendants for a judgment and decree, declaring that the plaintiffs are the lawful and absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
For a judgment and decree of perceptual/permanent injunction, restraining the defendants either by themselves or through their agents, workmen, or anyone claiming through them etc., from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Consequently, for a judgment and decree, declaring that the alleged sale deed dated 07.03.2013 executed by the defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the land measuring 3 acres in Sy No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bengaluru North Taluk is not binding upon the plaintiffs and award cost of the proceeding in the interest of justice and equity.
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY 4 OS.NO.3825/2018 All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site bearing No.772 measuring East to West 60 ft. (18.28 mtrs) and North to South 40 ft. (12.19 mtrs) in all totally measuring 2400 sq. ft. (222.83 sq. mtrs) carved out in Sy Nos.24/5, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 25, 26/1, 2, 3B, 33/1, 34/1, 2, 35/1, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 37/2, 3, 6, 38/1, 48/1B, 49/3, 50/4, 51/2, 52/1, 76/3A, 3B, 77/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 78/2, 79, 81/1 (Part), 85/8, 86, 87/1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 87/3, 4 and 88/5, situated at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the layout formed the Vyalikaval Housing Building Co-operative Society Ltd., bounded on;
East by : Site bearing No.787
West by : Road
North by : Site bearing No.771
South by : Site bearing No.773
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case is as follows;
The plaintiffs had under a registered sale deed dated 24/09/2005, jointly purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.772, measuring East to West 60 Feet and North to South 40 Feet and thereby totally measuring 2400 Square Feet in the layout formed by 'Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd.' in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk, morefully described in the Schedule hereunder and hereinafter called as the 'Suit Schedule Property'. The aforesaid site had been purchased under the registered sale deed dated 24/09/2005 from one Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. The plaintiffs had been put in possession of the Suit 5 OS.NO.3825/2018 Schedule Property under the terms of the registered sale deed/ registered document and continue to be in possession of the said Suit Schedule Property. The Bangalore Development Authority under the Order dated 05/11/2005 bearing No.BDA/RON/C3/772/05-06 issued Certificate in respect of the Suit Schedule Property in Khata of by plaintiffs. Subsequently, the suit schedule property has fallen within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and the name of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property has also been entered in the Khata by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property are regularly paying the property taxes in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. Sri. G.Prasad Reddy (vendor of plaintiffs) had in turn purchased the Suit Schedule Property for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited & Sree Shakthi Promoters & Developers. The said Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had put the said Sri.G.Prasad Reddy in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and had also issued the Possession Certificate dated 05/04/2004. The Khata in respect of the Suit Schedule Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority in favour of Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had passed the resolution dated 12/09/2003 approving the Layout plan submitted by Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited in respect of Land measuring 98 acres 21 guntas in 6 OS.NO.3825/2018 Nagavara village. Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara village is a part of the said approved layout plan & the Suit Schedule Property, i.e., Site No.772 is comprised within the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, as could be clearly seen from the approved layout plan. Pursuant to the purchase of the residential site/ Suit Schedule Property under the Registered Sale Deed, the plaintiffs been put in possession of the same and continue to remain in possession till date. Such being the facts, to the utter shock the plaintiffs, on 04/07/2015, the defendant No.1 along with her agents henchmen and workers, numbering more than 50 in number had all of a sudden swooped down on the site / Suit Schedule Property belonging to the plaintiffs and started to proclaim that she was the owner of the entire land comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk The defendant No.1 and her group of persons were provided with police protection and assistance by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore and the Station House Officer, K. G. Halli Police Station. The defendant No.1 with her agents and henchmen had carried out demolition of the compound walls of several other adjacent site owners. The defendant No.1 attempted to take over the possession of the Suit Schedule Property from the plaintiffs but the same was ably resisted though the defendant No.1 had the active support of Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore and the Station House Officer, K. G. Halli Police Station, who had been directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District to provide police protection. The plaintiffs and several other 7 OS.NO.3825/2018 site owners in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village immediately approached the Station House Officer of K.G. Halli Police Station and sought their protection in the matter and submitted a complaint in writing. Unfortunately, the Station House Officer of K.G. Halli Police Station refused to receive the complaint and intimated to the plaintiffs and others that he had received instructions from the Deputy Commissioner of Police as well as the Deputy Commissioner to provide police protection to the defendant No.1 to put up the compound wall around the property measuring 3 Acres in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. To the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiffs and several other adjacent site owners, they were furnished with the copy of the complaint dated 04/07/2015 filed by the defendant No.1 before the Station House Officer, K.G.Halli Police Station, wherein, the defendant No.1 has claimed to have purchased an extent of 3 Acres of land in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk under a sale deed dated 103/2013 from defendant Nos.2 to 4 herein. The plaintiff has also secured the copy of a petition dated 22/06/2015 filed by the defendant No.1 before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore, seeking for police protection to put up a compound wall in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. In the said petition dated 22/06/2015, the defendant No.1 had referred to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in respect of the very same land, i.e., Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, directing the police authorities to provide police protection for 8 OS.NO.3825/2018 erecting the compound wall. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs immediately made enquiries and obtained from the owners of the adjacent sites, the copy of the Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. It was shocking to observe that the Deputy Commissioner without even looking into the records, had accepted the claim of some stranger by name Sri. Arifullah Sheriff that the land acquisition in respect of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village had been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and that the land had to be restored in favour of the original land owners. The Deputy Commissioner has under the said order dated 13/06/2014, directed the police authorities to provide police protection to the said persons to erect compound wall. Under such circumstances, the 1st plaintiff herein along with other site owners had filed Writ Petitions bearing W.P.Nos.29139-29143/2015 on 13/07/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, challenging the Order dated 13/06/2014 that had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore & for other consequential reliefs. The 1st plaintiff herein was petitioner in W.P.No.29139- 29143/2015. The defendant No.1 herein had been impleaded as respondent in W.P.No.29139-29143/2015. The learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Karnataka had issued the Notice to the respondents therein and ha granted an interim orders dated 16/07/2015 & 25/08/201 W.P.No.29139-29143/2015, staying the operation of the Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and had directed the defendant No.1 9 OS.NO.3825/2018 herein (5th respondent therein) not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the site bearing No.772 (Suit Schedule Property herein), formed in land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk.
Further submitted that, ultimately, the said W.P.No.29139- 29143/2015 had been connected to W.P.No.28388-28401/2015 (filed by other adjacent site owners in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village) and was finally heard by the learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the said Writ Petitions came to be allowed by the Final Order dated 19/07/2016 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore reserving liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Para 5 of the said Final Order dated 19/07/2016 also observed that the aggrieved party has to approach a civil court for appropriate reliefs and in the said case, the party concerned has to seek a direction for police protection. On the basis of the order of the civil court, the official respondent can consider grant of police protection. In terms of the Final Order dated 19/07/2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.29139-29143/2015, the plaintiffs have thus approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the present suit seeking for declaration of title and such other consequential and appropriate reliefs due to the illegal and high-handed actions on the part of the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have continued to remain in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and their possession 10 OS.NO.3825/2018 was also protected by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the interim Orders dated 16/07/2015 & 25/08/2015 passed in W.P.No.29139-29143/2015, whereby the defendant No.1 had been restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property, i.e. residential site No.772 comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village in Bangalore North Taluk. The 1st plaintiff is working in USA and is presently residing in USA had to therefore seek legal advice in filing the above suit and had to also arrange for funds for the purpose of payment of court fees and fee for the counsel. The 2nd plaintiff is the wife of the 1st plaintiff and is residing along with the 1st plaintiff in USA. In these circumstances, since the plaintiffs had to arrange for funds and also since the plaintiffs had to secure the copies of all relevant documents, that some time has been consumed in filing the suit though there has never been any intentional or deliberate delay in approaching this Court. The Defendant No.1 is still proclaiming that she is the owner of the land and that she would dispossess the plaintiff from his residential site. As a matter of fact, the defendant had tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs in and over the suit schedule property during the 2nd week of May 2018 but the plaintiffs who were informed by the other neighboring site owners and with the help of such adjacent site owners, were able to prevent such illegal action on the part of the 1st defendant in trying to take over the possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. Admittedly, the defendant 11 OS.NO.3825/2018 No.1 is not in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and has been trying to interfere with plaintiff's possession and is attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property. The latest attempt made by the defendant in this illegal action is during the 2nd week of May 2018. The very fact that the defendant No.1 had approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore under the petition dated 22/06/2015 seeking police protection to put up the compound wall in and over land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, would clearly reveal that the defendant No.1 is not in possession of the said property. The Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore has also been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.2913929143/2015. Therefore, the defendant No.1 can neither interfere with the plaintiff's possession in and over the Suit Schedule Property nor can the defendant No.1 dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property. It is a well settled proposition of Law that a person possession of a land (be it even a trespasser) cannot be dispossession except in due course of Law. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are in possession the residential site bearing 772, i.e., Suit Schedule Property from 24/09/2005 onwards by virtue of a registered sale deed and the vendor the plaintiffs had been put in possession of the very same Suit Schedule Property on 05/04/2004 under a Possession Certificate and registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 executed by Vyalikaval House Building Co Operative Society Limited. The defendant No.1 claims to have purchased an extent Acres of land 12 OS.NO.3825/2018 in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village under the Sale Deed dated 07/03/2013 executed by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 who allegedly claim to be the son and grandchildren respectively of one D.Chowrappa, S/o. Sri. Daveedappa. The said Sri. Daveedappa claimed to be the son of one Sri. Aryogyappa, the original land owner of land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. The said persons, i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 4 could have never executed the sale deed in respect of the said lands since the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village to an extent of 6 Acres 36 Guntas had been acquired under the Final Notification dated 21/02/1986 issued under Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & the defendant Nos.2 to 4 had never challenged the acquisition proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The defendant No.1 could also not have been put in possession of the said land since the plaintiffs were already in possession of the same since the entire extent of land in Sy.No.49/3 had been acquired on 21/02/1986. Further, the very sale deed dated 07/03/2013 executed in favour of the defendant No.1 is a document that is 'Void Ab-initio' since the land in question, i.e., Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village had been acquired by the State Government in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited the Final Notification dated 21/02/1986 issued under Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Further, the Bangalore Development Authority has approved the layout plan in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co- Operative Society Limited as far back as on 12/09/2003. Thus, the 13 OS.NO.3825/2018 said sale deed dated 07/03/2013 executed in favour of the defendant No.1 is not binding upon the plaintiffs since the persons executing the said sale deed to the defendant No.1, admittedly, did not have right, title or interest in and over land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village as on that date since their title had been extinguished due to acquisition of land by the State Government. Moreover, the alleged sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No. Tis much later in point the plaintiffs of time compared to the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff herein.
FACTS RELATING TO LAND ACQUISITION OF SY.NO.49/3 OF NAGAVARA VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK The State Government had originally initiated acquisition proceeding in 1984 under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire lands in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. (VHBC). One acquisition proceedings was for around 428 acres of land comprised in Devarachikkanahalli, Kodichikkanahalli & other villages in Bangalore South Taluk. The other acquisition proceeding was to an extent of about 164 acres in Nagavara Village in Bangalore North Taluk. The State Government issued the Final Notification on 21/02/1986 published in the Gazette on 24/02/1986 under Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring an extent of about 164 Acres of land comprised in various survey numbers in Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. It is relevant to state that the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 measuring to an extent of 6 Acres 36 14 OS.NO.3825/2018 Guntas was acquired under the aforesaid Notification dated 21/02/1986 and the same is found at Sl.No.43 of the said Notification. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had also issued the Notification under Sec.16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the gazette on 05/05/1988 intimating that the lands comprised in various survey numbers in Nagawara village had been taken possession for the purpose of M/s. Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. The land bearing Sy.No.49/3 is mentioned at SI.No.34 of the said Notification dated 05/05/1988. The acquisition proceedings in respect of Devarachikkanahalli, Kodichikkanahalli & other villages in Bangalore South Taluk in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. were challenged by Narayana Reddy and others & the. acquisition of lands was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Karn vide judgment reported in ILR 1991 (3) KAR 2248 (Narayana Reddy State of Karnataka). The said judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Judgment dated 21/02/1995, reported in 1995 SCC 128 (Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. Narayana Reddy and others). It is relevant to submit that the acquisition respect of the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village was involved in the aforementioned judgments. In the meanwhile, one Sri. R. Jojappa and his sons, b names, Sri.J.Burnad & Sri. J.Sandyagappa claiming to be the owners of land measuring to an extent of 1 Acre 26 Guntas comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village had filed a Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.9815/199 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, 15 OS.NO.3825/2018 challenging the acquisition notification dated 21/02/1986 to that extent of land only. The said W.P.No.9815/1994 had been connected to W.P.No.6421-28/1994 & connected matters. The Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had passed the Final Order dated 18/02/1997 in the aforesaid Writ Petitions and while setting aside the acquisition proceedings impugned therein, has categorically held at Para 6 of the I order that the acquisition notifications are quashed only in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners therein. The acquisition proceedings relating to an extent of land comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village, allegedly belonging to David Raj David, S/o. D. Chowrappa, had never been questioned in any Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The land bearing Sy.No.49/3 has been notified at Sl.No.43 therein to an extent of 6 Acres 36 Guntas and 14 Guntas of Kharab. At Column No.3 of the said Notification pertaining to 'Anubhavadar', the name of 'Jojappa' has been shown. Therefore, the acquisition of land in Sy.No.49/3 had been set aside under the order dated 18/02/1997 passed in W.P.No.9815/1994 only in so far as the extent of land belonging to Jojappa and the extent allegedly belonging to David Raj was never involved in the said Writ Petition Similarly, a few other persons had challenged the acquisition proceedings in respect of certain pieces of land in Nagavara village (prior to 1999) and thus about 52 acres 17 guntas from out of about 164.26 acres had been either set aside or de-notified. Vyalikaval House Building Co- Operative Society had thus approached the State Government 16 OS.NO.3825/2018 with the request to acquire even the remaining extent of 52 acres 17 guntas in Nagavara village including an extent of 1 Acre 26 Guntas in Sy.No.49/3. The State Government had thus issued a Notification dated 28/07/1999 under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire an extent of 52 acres 17 guntas comprised in various survey numbers in Nagavara village including the portion of Sy.No.49/3 measuring to an extent of 1 Acre 26 Guntas. Since the State Government did not proceed with the acquisition of 52 acres 17 guntas of land in Nagavara village under the Notification dated 28/07/1999, the Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, seeking for a direction to the State Government to complete the acquisition proceedings. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had upheld the said Notification dated and had issued a direction to the State Government to take steps to issue the final Notification under Sec.6(1). The said judgment is reported in 2006(1) KLJ Pg.233 (B. Anjanappa & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others). It is relevant to submit that in the very 2nd para of the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has very clearly observed that the appellants in Writ Appeal No.2532/2004 are the owners of particular pieces of lands and one such land is clearly specified as Sy.No.49/3 measuring 1 Acre 36 Guntas. The aforesaid judgment (2006(1) KLJ Pg.233) had been challenged by Anjanappa and others (including Jojappa) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case bearing C.A.No. 17 OS.NO.3825/2018 1930-32/2012. It is important to observe that the son of Jojappa by name Sri. J. Sandhyagappa had filed an affidavit dated 23/03/2006 in the said S.L.P.(C) No.24972/2005 (subsequently converted to C.A.No. 193032/2012) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, declaring that he had settled the matter out of court and withdrawing the said Special Leave Petition pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 measuring 1 Acre 26 Guntas of Nagavara Village. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed the judgment dated 07/02/2012, reported in 2012 (10) SCC Pg. 184 (B. Anjanappa Vyayalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Others). TH Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the acquisition proceedings was bad and at Para 27 of the Judgment specifically directed that if Vyalikava House Building Co- Operative Society Ltd. was in possession of any portion of the acquired land, then the same to be returned to the land owners and to file a compliance report before the Court. Para 27 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"Para 27: If respondent 1 is in possession of the acquired land or any portion thereof, then the same shall be returned to the land owners concerned within a period of two months from today. This direction shall apply not only qua the appellants but other land owners who may not have filed Writ Appeals or Special Leave Petitions, may be due to poverty, illiteracy or ignorance. However, it is made clear that the above-mentioned directions shall not apply to such 18 OS.NO.3825/2018 of the land owners who have withdrawn the Special Leave Petitions. If any of the land owners has received compensation from the State, then the latter shall be free to recover the same in accordance with Law."
(Emphasis supplied) In accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anjanappa's case (2012 (10) SCC Pg.184), Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. had filed the compliance report in C.A.No. 1930/2012, furnishing the details of the land acquisition involved under the Notification dated 28/07/1999. The details pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village is found at SI.No.17 at Para 8 of the compliance report submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It has been clearly stated therein that the S.L.P. pertaining to Sy.No.49/3 measuring 1 Acre 26 Guntas had been withdrawn. Further, the report also furnishes the details of the total extent of land measuring 98 Acres 21 Guntas comprised in various survey numbers of Nagavara Village in the layout plan that had been submitted for approval to the Bangalore Development Authority measuring to an extent of 5 Acres 10 Guntas is shown attached therewith. Therefore, it becomes clear and specific that the land measuring 5 Acres 10 Guntas comprised in S No 49/3 of Nagawara Village is included in the layout plan approved the Bangalore Development Authority on 12/09/2003. Considering the said compliance report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has 19 OS.NO.3825/2018 passed the Order dated 24/04/2014 in C.A.No. 1930/2012 and at Para 11 of the said Order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically clarified that the said Court in the case of B. Anjanappa (2012 (10) SCC 184) has confined the land in dispute to 52 acres 17 guntas only and had also placed reliance on the State Government proceedings dated July 2012 and has confirmed the same. The BDA on a mistaken notion, had passed a resolution dated 16/05/2012, revoking the layout plan that had been approved in respect of Nagavara Village and had also issued certain orders and endorsements. The aforesaid order and action of the BDA was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by Smt. Akkamma and others in W.P.No.27725/2013 & connected matters. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed the Final Order dated 25/09/2014 in W.P.No.27725/2013 & connected matters, setting aside the aforesaid resolution dated 16/05/2012 of Bangalore Development Authority. It is relevant to mention that in the meanwhile, several Writ Petitions had been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, challenging the acquisition proceedings dated 21/02/1986 pertaining to lands comprised in Nagawara Village. The Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed the Judgment dated 14/07/2011 in W.P.No.11910-914/2009 and connected Writ Petitions and after referring to all the previous judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has specifically clarified at Para 38 of the (internal page 41) that neither the High Court nor the Apex Court quashed the acquisition 20 OS.NO.3825/2018 notifications in respect of Nagawara Village Toto. The Hon'ble High Court has also clarified at Para 39 of the judgment that Narayana Reddy case (ILR 1991 (3) KAR 2248 & 1995 (3) SCCA was relating to acquisition pertaining to Cholanayakanahalli Village Bangalore South Taluk and not to Nagawara Village. Ultimately, all Writ Petitions challenging acquisition of lands pertaining to Nagawa Village have been dismissed. Therefore, the understanding and perusal of the documents and judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India would make it clear that the acquisition of land in respect of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village in favour of M/s. Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited has never been set aside and that the same has attained finality. Thus, the residential site bearing No.772 (Suit Schedule Property) belonging to the plaintiffs has legally vested with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have the right, title and interest over the said property.
FACTS RELATING TO DISPUTE IN QUESTION Once the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated and completed under Sec.4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, any subsequent proceedings relating to change of entries in the RTC or in the revenue records or any subsequent sale by the erstwhile land owners whose lands have been acquired, would all be rendered void ab-initio and would be of no consequence. The defendant No.1 has apparently/allegedly purchased the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 measuring 3 Acres under the sale deed dated 07/03/2013 by placing reliance on the judgment dated 07/02/2012 21 OS.NO.3825/2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.1930/2012 (Anjanappa case, referred to supra). The said transaction is a void transaction since the land in question i.e., Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village had been acquired way back 21/02/1986. The possession of the lands had also been taken on 19/02/1988 as evidenced in the Notification dated 05/05/1998. Therefore, the defendant No.1 does not have any right, title or interest over the Suit Schedule Property in question and further, the said sale deed dated 07/03/2018 is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs have acquired title Schedule Property under a registered sale deed from the vendor who had inturn purchased the said Suit Schedule Property from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited in whose favour, the entire land comprised in Sy.No.49/3 (in which the site/Suit Schedule Property is situated) of Nagavara Village had been acquired on 21/02/1986, the plaintiffs are the lawful and legal owners of the Suit Schedule Property and they cannot be dispossessed by the defendant No.1 who has absolutely no right, title or interest over the property in question. The defendant No.1 by colluding with the police officials had been trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property in question by relying upon the Order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. Fortunately for the plaintiffs, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has quashed the said Order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner. After the passing of the Final Order dated 19/07/2016 by the learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Court 22 OS.NO.3825/2018 of Karnataka in W.P.No.29139-29143/2015 & connected matters, the defendant No.1 is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property by using the aid and assistance of rowdy elements and goondas and the said attempt was last made during the 2nd week of May 2018. The police authorities are not entertaining the complaints of the plaintiffs. There is every possibility that the defendant No.1 would use her power and might and dispossess the plaintiffs from their possession in and over the Suit Schedule Property. Hence, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit. Since the 1st plaintiff is working in United States of America (USA) & is residing there and the 2nd plaintiff is the wife of the 1st plaintiff and is presently residing in USA, they have executed a General Power of Attorney dated 16/09/2005 in favour of the father of the 1st plaintiff, authorizing him to take care of the affairs relating to the suit schedule property and to institute any case on their behalf for the purpose of safeguarding the property. The father of the 1st plaintiff is well aware of the entire facts and circumstances relating to title and purchase of the suit schedule property. CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 04/07/2015 when the defendant No.1 attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property with the aid and assistance of the police authorities based order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore an pursuant to the Final Order dated 19/07/2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.29139-29143/2015 and the threat being made out subsequently in the 2nd week of May 2018 by the 23 OS.NO.3825/2018 defendant No.1 to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property. The entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. JURISDICTION: The suit schedule property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to deal with and to decide the suit and grant the relief sought for.
3. On issuance of summons, defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement. In the written statement as contended as follows;
The suit filed by the plaintiffs are wholly misconceived, devoid of merits and untenable in Law. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The signs suit of the plaintiffs for the alleged relief of declaration ₁ and not binding on the plaintiffs and consequent relief of the permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property against the defendants is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. The present suit is most frivolous, vexatious and baseless claim with a sole intention of harassing the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have indulged into the malpractice of misusing and abusing the due process of law and the same has to be viewed very seriously by this Hon'ble court and may have to be reprimanded suitably by this Hon'ble court. The plaintiff is guilty of SUPPRESSIO VARIE AND SUGGETIO FALSIE and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief in respect of suit schedule property. The averments made in paragraphs-3 to 5 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not within the knowledge of the defendant No.1 and the same are not correct 24 OS.NO.3825/2018 and thereby denied as false and incorrect. The averments of the plaintiff that, the she has purchased residential sites bearing No.772 under registered dated: 24/09/2005 in the alleged layout said to have been formed by Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society Ltd, hereinafter referred as Society in the land Sy No. 49/3 Nagawara Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, described schedule property, from one Sri. G. Prasad Reddy of as suit are not correct and the same are hereby denied. On the material on record, it is evidenced that the said G. Prasad Reddy is not bonafied allottee and he is a developer having purchased more than 133 sites in the alleged layout of the Society. The schedule property described in the Memorandum of plaint, stating that, the alleged residential sites bearing No.772, is comprised in several survey number lands, on the face of the records is not identifiable and at no stretch of imagination the plaintiff can contend that the alleged site is comprised and formed out of land Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village. The alleged residential site described in the schedule of the Memorandum of Plaint is non existing property and the same is not identifiable in the facts and circumstances that, no revenue sketch of City Survey Sketch is produced for identification of the location of the alleged site. The averments made by the plaintiffs that, she is put in possession of the schedule property and that, the BDA, Bangalore has issued katha certificate in respect of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and the documents produced by the plaintiffs in that behalf are incorrect and the same are hereby denied. The alleged sale deed relied upon by the 25 OS.NO.3825/2018 plaintiffs is illegal and untenable and as such, the plaintiffs did not derived any lawful rights, title and interest and much less possession over the alleged site under the alleged sale deed dated: 24/09/2005. Therefore, the khata certificate tax paid receipts based on alleged illegal sale deed are untenable and do not confer any rights, title and interest much less lawful possession over the alleged site claimed by the plaintiffs. The averments made in paragraph-5 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the katha certificate, katha extract and payment of property taxes to BBMP, Bangalore, are of no consequence as the alleged sale transaction claimed by the plaintiffs is illegal and sham transaction and the plaintiffs did not derive any right, title or interest much less lawful possession over the alleged site described as schedule property. The alleged documents referred by the plaintiffs are untenable and of no consequence. The averments made in paragraph-6 of the plaint are all specifically denied as false and incorrect. It is false to state that G.Prasad Reddy purchased the Schedule property from Vyalikaval House building Co-Society ltd and Sri. Shaskti promoters and developers vide sale deed dated 31/03/2004 and he was put in possession and khatas were mutated in his name. It is relevant to submit here that all the above said transaction are illegal and against to the bylaws of the society. The averments made in paragraph-7 of the plaint are all specifically denied as false and incorrect. It is false to state that the resolution dated: 12-09-2003 passed by the BDA, Bangalore. The plaintiff has suppressed subsequent events and made 26 OS.NO.3825/2018 misrepresentation of facts with ulterior motive before this court. The averments made in paragraph 8 that the plaintiff is put in possession till date are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph 9 that the plaint are specifically denied as false and incorrect. It is absolutely false to state that on 4-7-2015, he defendant No.1 along with her he agents, henchmen and workers ,numbering than 50 in number and sudden swooped down on the site proclaiming she was the owner of the entire land bearing Sy No.49/3 with police and other averments. The Plaintiffs have narrated a cooked up story to maintain suit before this court. The defendant No.1 after the purchase of the property year 2013, immediately she had put up Zinc Sheet compound wall all round her property and she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and as such, there is no question of defendant No.1 putting up compound wall, demolition of during the compound walls. The averments made in paragraphs-10 to 13 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same are hereby while denied. Her worker making arrangements to put up brick wall compound replacing the Zinc sheet compound, some unknown persons came near the land tried to obstruct and make galata and in the said circumstances, defendant No.1 was constrained to submit complaints seeking protection of safe guard her property when some unknown third parties illegally attempted to interfere in the quiet enjoyment of defendant No.1 of her property and attempted to make galata. The averments of the plaintiffs that an order is passed by Deputy 27 OS.NO.3825/2018 Commissioner, Bengaluru for police protection are not correct. It is only forwarding communication letter dated: 13-06-2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru based on a representation on behalf of adjacent land owner Chowrappa. The communication letter. is only forwarding letter to police for taking necessary action. The averments made in paragraph-14 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to writ proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are matter on record. The averments made in paragraph-15 and 16 of the Memorandum of Plaint are also matter on record. It is however submitted that, the interim order granted was an exparte order on suppression of material facts and misrepresented of facts made by the writ petitioners, however, the Hon'ble High Court has not given any protection or given any decision with regard to alleged lawful rights, title and interest and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the property allegedly claimed by her and rightly passed final order disposing of the writ petitions holding that, the same is civil dispute in relation of the property in question. The averments made in paragraph 17 of the Memorandum of plaint except with regard to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in writ petitions, the further averments made therein are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments of the plaintiffs that, they continued to remain in possession of the suit schedule property and their possession was also protected by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The alleged residential site claimed by the plaintiffs is non existent, 28 OS.NO.3825/2018 imaginary property and the same is not comprised in land Sy. No.49/7 formerly Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village in an extent of 3- 00 acres belonging to defendant No. 1 at any stretch of imagination. The averments of the plaintiffs that it is comprised in land Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village is wholly unfounded, imaginary, without any basis and without any material records. The same is concocted created and imaginary for claiming the alleged residential site in the property belonging to defendant No. 1. The averments made in paragraphs-18 of the Memorandum of Plaint are incorrect. It is specifically false to state that the First plaintiff working in USA and other averments, which are nothing 204 205 but a flimsy story to cover up limitation to file suit.
Further submitted that, the averments made in paragraphs- 19, 20,21 and 22 Memorandum of Plaint are incorrect. Which are nothing but a flimsy story to cover up limitation to file suit. Land bearing Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village to an extent of 6 acres 36 gunats had been acquired under final notification dated: 22-01- 1986 issued U/s 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act and defendants No.2 to 4 never challenged the acquisition proceedings are incorrect and the same are hereby denied. The family members of defendants No.2 to 4 had challenged the acquisition proceedings in batch of writ petitions WP No. 6421-6428/1994 and connected writ petitions and the acquisition proceedings are quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru vide order dated 18-02-1997. Thereafter, placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex Court, the 29 OS.NO.3825/2018 State Government having exercised its eminent domain issued Government order dated: 05-02-2009 and in proceedings initiated by the Special land Acquisition Office the land in question is registered to the erstwhile land owners on collecting the award amount received by them and SubarduPatraa dated: 25-03-2009 is issued and subsequently Revenue Authorities have conducted mutation and RRT proceedings passed orders recording the entries in the name of Daveed Raj@ David C. In respect of 3-00 Acres of land. Thus. the vendors of defendant No.1 were absolute owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of the extent of 3-00 acres comprised in land Sy.No. 49/3 purchased by defendant No.1 It is submitted that, the vendors of defendant No.1 executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 were the absolute owners having all rights, title and interest over the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village measuring an extent of 3-00 Acres. Theaverments made in paragraphs-23, 24 and 25 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The alleged preliminary and final notifications said to be issued U/s 4 (1) and 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act are illegal and unsustainable in Law. The alleged notification said to have been issued by the Special land Acquisition Officer 16 (2) of land Acquisition Act is illegal, unfounded and based on no material records. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka declined to accept the contention of the Society that, the possession of the lands had been taken under the alleged notification of the issued U/s 16 (2) of Land Acquisition Act. the 30 OS.NO.3825/2018 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has conclusively held that the possession of the lands were not taken by the State Government and handed over the society in accordance with law and quashed the acquisition proceedings in the proceedings initiated by the land owners. Theaverments made in paragraph-26 of the Memorandum Plaint referring to the decision of Hon'ble High Court Karnataka is matter on records. The averments made paragraphs-27 of the memorandum of plaint are not correct the same are hereby denied. The challenged to acquisition made by family member of vendors of defendant No.1 shall accrued to the benefit of the vendors of defendant no.1 there is no valid acquisition proceedings in respect of land Sy.No. 49/3 presently Sy.No.49/7 of Nagawara village having regard to the State Government issued Government Order dated: 05-02-2009 canceling the acquisition proceedings. The averments made in paragraph-28 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the interpretation of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court, contending that, extent of land belonging to Daveeda Raj was not involved in the writ petition are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-29 of the Memorandum of Plaint are matter on record and it may be seen that the land in Sy.No. 49/3 is also referred to in the said notification dated: 28-07-1999. The averments made in paragraph 30 and 31 of the memorandum of plaint with regard to the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are matter on record, however the further averments made by the plaintiffs with regard to the affidavit filed by J Sandhyagappa said to be son of 31 OS.NO.3825/2018 Jojappa are not correct and the same hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-32 of the memorandum of plaint with regard to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is matter on record. The averments made in paragraph-33 of the Memorandum of plaint with regard to the compliance report said to have been filed by the Society the name is factually incorrect and as such the contents of the said report are incorrect and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-34 of the Memorandum plaint with regard to order passed on 24-04-2014 by the Hon'ble Apex Court is matter on record. The averments made in paragraph-35 of the Memorandum of plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. There is no valid approved layout plan issued by competent Local authority, BDA, Bengaluru as on date and as such the alleged residential site is unidentifiable in the absence of Revenue sketch or city survey sketch and at any stretch of imagination the alleged residential site is not comprised in land Sy No.49/3, presently Sy No.49/7 of Nagawara village, belonging to defendant No. 1. That with regard to the averments made in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Memorandum of plaint the interpretation sought to be made with regard to the decision of Hon'ble High Court, is self serving and the same is not correct and not accepted and admitted by the defendant No. 1. the defendant No.1 submits that the averments made in paragraph 36 of the Memorandum of plaint with regard to judgment dated: 14-07-2011 passed in WP Nos. 11910-914/2009 and connected Writ Petitions, the land owners therein have preferred WA Nos. 1681-16814/2000 32 OS.NO.3825/2018 pending consideration before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and the Writ Appeals are admitted and posted for hearing. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and the granted interim order of stay on 05-02-2013 and as such the said findings recorded and judgment passed by Learned single judge has not reached finality and the same is under challenge before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In view of the matter, the contentions of the plaintiff placing reliance on the said judgment are untenable and liable to be rejected. The averments made in paragraph 38 and 39 of Memorandum of plaint are not correct and the same are Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-40 of the pliant are not correct and the same are hereby denied. 30.The defendant No, 1 submits that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and the one alleged in paragraph-41 of memorandum of plaint are not correct. The alleged cause of action is concerned and created without any basis for filing the the suit.
True facts of the case by the Defendant No.1 Land Sy.No.49/3 Nagawara village originally measurement and extent of 7 Acres 10 guntas including 14 guntas of karab land belonging to the family of Arogyappa. That Daveedappa is son of Arogyappa who died leaving behind his son Chowarappa, who also died leaving his son David Raj@ David.C. The names of David Raj @ David C son of D.Chowrappa, Chowrareddy son of Thomasappa and R. Jojappa son of Rajappa were the joint kathedars shown and reflected in the revenue records as on the 33 OS.NO.3825/2018 year 1984-86. In the partition taken place in the family of Deveed raj @ david.C. Sy,No.49/3 is also subjected in the partition deed dated 23/08/1961and in the said partition an extent of 3 acres in the Sy.No.49/3 is fallen the share of Daveed raj @ David.C. When the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Authorities and the state Government for the benefit of the society. The alleged preliminary and final notifications said to be issued U/s 4 (1) and 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act are illegal and unsustainable in Law. The alleged notification said to have been issued by the Special land Acquisition Officer U/s 16 (2) of land Acquisition Act is illegal, unfounded and based on no material records. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Apex court has criticized that allotment of lands in favour of the society is illegal and declined to accept the contention of the Society that, the possession of the lands had been taken under the alleged notification of the issued U/s 16 (2) of Land Acquisition Act. the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has conclusively held that the possession of the lands were not taken by the State Government and handed over the society in accordance with law and quashed the acquisition proceedings in the proceedings initiated by the land owners. The Land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village had been acquired under final notification dated: 22-01-1986 issued U/s 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act. Being a aggrieved by the said acquisition the family members of defendants No.2 to 4 had challenged the acquisition proceedings in batch of writ petitions WP No. 64216428/1994 and connected writ petitions and the acquisition proceedings are 34 OS.NO.3825/2018 quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru vide order dated 18-02-1997. It is further submitted that, thereafter, placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government having exercised its eminent domain and in proceeding initiated by the Special land Acquisition Officer the land 7question is restored to the erstwhile land owners on the award amount received by them. Based on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government exercising the power of eminent domain passed order No. RD 134 LAQB 2007 dated: 05- 02-2009 and directed that the Lands be restored to the erstwhile Land owners. That in compliance of the Government order the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, has taken steps and on redeposit of compensation amount awarded steps and on sum of in a Rs.17,63,022/- in respect of three items of lands including lands Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village, measuring an extent 6 Acres 36 guntas and 0-14 guntas kharab land, issued Subardu Patra dated: 25-03-2009, handing over the possession to the land owners. Thereafter, RRT proceedings initiated by Daveeda Raj @ David C, in case No. RRT (DJ) (CR) 24/2011-12 before the Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru North Taluk on holding enquiry passed order for effecting mutation and issue of RTC in respect of portion of Land measuring 3-00 acres in Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village belonging to his family. Accordingly, mutation is effected and RTC is issued in the name of Daveeda Raj @ David C. S/o. Late D Chowrappa. Thus vendors of defendant No.1 have became 35 OS.NO.3825/2018 absolute owners having all rights, title and interest over the land bearing Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village measuring an extent of 3-00 Acres. She has purchased an extent of 3-00 acres of land, portion of land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village, belonging to Daveed Raj @ David C. Under registered sale deed dated: 07-03- 2013, by paying valuable sale consideration of Rs. 5,62,50,000/- and based on the registered sale deed the revenue Authorities have mutated and recorded the name of defendant No.1 in respect of an extent of 3-00 acres of land in Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village, assigning further sub division of an extent of 3-00 acres of land belonging to defendant No.1. The purchase of 3-00 Acres of land under the said registered sale deed is legal and valid in Law and the defendant No.1 has acquired absolute rights, title and interests and lawful possession over the said extent of 3-00 acres of land. All revenue records as on date are in the name of defendant No. 1 in so far as land measuring 3-00 acres presently Sy.No.49/7 formerly portion of Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village. The defendant No.1 is absolute owner having all rights, title and interest and she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of land measuring 3-00 Acres with specific boundaries comprised in Sy.No.49/7 formerly Sy.No. 49/3 and defendant No.1 has produced Hissa Tippani, Patta Book (Form-5), AkarBandh Extract as Document Nos 8, 9 & 10 respectively. The defendant No.1 after purchase of the land in question to safeguard her property, she and put up Zinc Sheet compound. In the background of above proceedings the society did not have any right, title and interest 36 OS.NO.3825/2018 much less lawful possession over any part of village presently Sy.No. 49/7 of Nagawara Village, measuring an extent of 3-00 Acres belonging to defendant No.1 and the alleged allotment issued and sale deed executed favour of G. Prasada Reddy, from whom the plaintiffs are claiming alleged rights, title and interest over the alleged residential site are all without any Authority of Law and the Plaintiffs did not derive any rights, title or interest much less lawful possession over any portion of land Sy.No.49/3 presently Sy.No.49/7 of Nagawara Village. Therefore, on the face of materials on record the plaintiff has no manner of any right, title and interest much less lawful possession over the schedule property said to be comprised in land Sy.No.49/3, presently Sy.No. 49/7 of Nagawara village. With regard to the alleged acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government for the benefit of the Society has checkered History as details hereunder.
a). That land owner Smt.Puttamma filed WP No.8194/1987 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the acquisition proceedings and the acquisition proceedings were quashed against which the society preferred in W.A.No.506/1996 and Connected writ appeal before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which came to be dismissed.
b). The acquisition proceedings initiated by the Authorities and the State Government were subject matter of challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in batch of writ petitions, which Land Sy.No. 49/3 was involved in batch of writ petitions in WP No. 9815/1994 by the family members of Late Arogyappa and the 37 OS.NO.3825/2018 acquisition lands including land Sy. No 49/3 of Nagawaravillage vide order dated: 18-02-1997.
b). The Society preferred writ appeal No. W.A.Nos.2336- 2343/1997 and connected writ appeals before Division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which came to be dismissed by Judgment dated: 05-03-1998 and The SLP (Civil) No.495- 498/1999 filed by the Society before Hon'ble Apex Court were dismissed by order dated: 14-07-1999.
c). The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed Judgment in WA No. 2188/1998 filed by Land Owner, H. Narayanappa quashing the acquisition proceedings under Judgment dated: 17-01-2000 and while passing the judgment, division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, on detailed consideration of the matter at para-5 of the judgment held that, the society is a bogus society" the Society preferred Civil Appeal No.902/2001 before Hon'ble Apex Court which came to be withdrawn, and order passed on 26-07-2007.
d). That land owners V. Chandrappa and N. Anjanappa preferred WA. No. 2294/1999 which came to be allowed by judgment dated:
17-01-2000 before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Society preferred Revision Petition No.156/2000 which Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the reported decision ILR 2002 KAR 2113.
e). That arising out of the judgment passed in writ appeal No.2294/1999 and Review Petition Nos. 2086-2087/200 before Hon'ble Apex Court which is decided on 02-02-2007, dismissing 38 OS.NO.3825/2018 the Civil Appeals, reported on 2007 AIR SCW 1164. Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Narayanareddy Vs State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2248, decision in W.A.No.2336-
2434/1997, decision in the case of HMT HBSC vs. Syed Khader and Ors. Reported in (1995) 2 SCC 677 and decision in HMT HBSC Vs. M. Venkateswamappa & ors. Reported in (1995) 3 SCC 128 categorically laid down and recorded finding at para 6 of the judgment holding that, when the acquisition has been found totally malafied and not for bonafied purpose, has no the ground of delay and acquiescence in the case substance. It is further held that, the issue of notification was malafied and it was not for public purpose.
f). That one Smt. Lakshmamma and another filed Contempt Petition (C) No. 288-295/1999 in respect of land Sy. No. 24/1 and 78/7 of Nagawara village before Hon'ble Apex Court, complaining against the then chief Secretary and Revenue Authorities that, in the revenue records of the lands belonging to the petitioners, their names are not mentioned and recorded. That on submissions made by the respondent/s State Authorities in the said proceedings stating that compliance has been made the contempt notice are discharged under Order Dated 12-09-2000.
g). The plaintiff is not bonafied purchaser of alleged residential site claimed by him in the suit they did not derived any rights, title and interest over the alleged residential site claimed by them in view of undisputed fact that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government and the Authorities for the benefit of the Society 39 OS.NO.3825/2018 are held to be null and void, visited by fraud and malafide. The State Government has taken decision in complying the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex court, restoring the lands to the erstwhile land owners on recovering the amount of compensation paid to the land owners pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. Therefore the society had no legal rights, title and interest and compensation to form layout and dispose the alleged residential site. The alleged sale deed said to be executed by the Society in favour of G. Prasad Reddy and in turn alleged to be purchased by the plaintiffs. through whom the plaintiffs allegedly claim rights, title and interest over residential site, are all illegal and null and void in lawful possession and enjoyment of the alleged residential site as claimed by them at any point of time and the alleged residential site is not comprised in land Sy.No. 49/3, portion of land measuring an extent of 3-00 acres belonging to defendant No. 1 re-assigned as land Sy.No. 49/7 of Nagawara Village, as falsely claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. The defendant No. 1 is in lawful possession and enjoyment of an extent of 3-00 acres of land, Sy.No. 49/7 formerly portion of Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara Village,. The defendant No.1 Submits that as already stated Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in batch of Writ Petitions in W.P No. 6421-28/1994 and connected Writ petitions passed order on 18-02-1997 categorically recording finding that there is no material to show that the Government has taken possession from the land owners and quashed the acquisition proceedings wherein land Sy No. 49/3 is involved.
40OS.NO.3825/2018
h). The Society had filed O.S. No. 1475/2000 before Hon'ble High Court and on trial this Hon'ble Court dismissed the suit by passing judgment and decree dated 21-02-2008. The Society filed another suit in O.S.No.1174/2001 before this Hon'ble of this suit Hon'ble Court passed on 01-08-2009.
i) The alleged action of the Society in making use of the land for the public purposes is apparently not in accordance with law and the residential site claimed by the plaintiffs was not allotted to the members of the Society and 100s of sites are allotted to one G. Prasad Reddy who is a Land Developers and he is not a member of the Society and no enquires made it is learnt that bulk allotment of sites on record is said to be made in favour of the said G.Prasad Reddy and therefore, it is apparent on the face of the records that the land notified for acquisition for public purposes has been sought to be diverted for wrongful gains to enrich a developer who in turn, executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged documents, katha certificate issued and tax paid receipts are all only paper documents arising out of sham and illegal transaction and the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of any portion of land belonging to defendant no. 1. The number of sites allotted to G.Prasad Reddy can be ascertained from the society who has the custody of all records and in spite of making requested the Society is not disclosing the information and furnishing the records as the transaction between the society and G.Prasad Reddy are illegal, collusive and for extraneous considerations made for illegal entichment of the office bearers of 41 OS.NO.3825/2018 the Society, the Development SreeShakthi Promoter and developers and the Developer the said G.Prasad Reddy. There is no proper approved layout plan identifying the residential site claimed by the plaintiff. the layout plan said to have been sanctioned and approved by Bengaluru Development Authority had been canceled subsequently and as such the alleged residential site claimed by the plaintiff is not identifiable on the spot.
j). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of B. Anjanappa Vs. Vyalikaval HBSC Ltd. &ors. Reported in (2012) 10 SCC page 184, the Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeals holding that, there is no prior approval sanctioning the housing Scheme in favour of the Society and acquisition proceedings are vitiated and issued direction to the Society, 1st respondent therein holding that this direction shall apply not only to the appellants, but other land owners who may not have challenged the acquisition proceeding. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Bengaluru City Co-Operative Housing Society Vs. State of Karnataka & ors. Reported in AIR 2012 SC page 1395 also held para 42 of the judgments that, acquisition proceedings initiated in favour of the said Society are malafied and vitiated and issued similar directions at para-43 of the judgment. The State Government having considered the Law laid down in the case of V. Chandrappa and B. Anjanappa stated supra and other decisions of this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Apex Court having given deliberate consideration obtaining legal opinion from the then Advocate general and Law 42 OS.NO.3825/2018 Department of State Government rightly passed Government order dated 04-06-2013 restoration of lands to the erstwhile land owners after recovery of compensation amount. It is clear from the Government Order that Government order dated: 05-02-2009; order 05-02-2009 is received and thereby action already taken under the said Government order are also ratified and confirmed. Therefore, the action of State Authorities in restoring the land Sy.No. 49/3, presently Sy.No.49/7 of Nagawara Village to the erstwhile land owner is just and proper and in accordance with law.
k). The Government order dated 04-06-2013 being subject matter of challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P Nos. 32482- 485/2013 and the order passed in the Writ Petition is subject matter of challenged in SLP No. 36857860/2014 before Hon'ble Apex Court and the said pending consideration, wherein interim order of stay of the operation of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court is issued and copy of the stay order is produced as Document No.25. In this context, some persons claiming as allottees of residential sites, similarly that of plaintiffs approached Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 35381-35389/2015 (LA-RES) sought for issue direction to the Revenue Authorities, to update and to revise the revenue records in respect of land Sy. No. 78/6 of Nagawara Village in accordance with final notification dated: 21- 02-1986 issued by the State Government. Hon'ble High Court on the affidavit submitted by the State Authorities declined to issue direction and passed order disposing of the Writ petitions on the 43 OS.NO.3825/2018 ground that the very subject matter is pending in adjudication before Hon'ble Apex Court.
She is in lawful possession and enjoyment of her property, presently land Sy No.49/7 formerly portion of land Sy No.49/3 of Nagawara village and as such there is no question of the defendant No.1 attempting to disposes the plaintiffs from the suit filed against the defendants is wholly misconceived and untenable in Law. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is with malafide intention with ulterior motive to harass the defendants for collateral and extraneous consideration illegally to extract money. The defendant No.1 being a actual possession of Sy.No.49/3 new No.49/7 measuring 3 acre of Nagawara village. The plaintiff being utter stager of suit schedule property might have created some documents and filed the above. false suit with an intention to knock of the valuable property. On the face of the records the alleged residential site is not comprised in the property belonging to defendant No.1, purchased form defendant No.2 to 4 and as such, the defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings of the suit and the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and therefore, liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.1 further submits that, the plaintiff allegedly claiming the alleged residential site said to have purchased from the society, who are necessary and property parties to the proceedings of the suit and the suit filed without impleading necessary and proper parties is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary parties. On the material on record it is evidenced that the plaintiffs are not allotee 44 OS.NO.3825/2018 from Vyalikaval House building society, though the said G.Prasad Reddy is not even member of the society, society has allotted more that 133 sites. the said G. Prasad Reddy is not bonafied allottee and he is a developed having acquired more than 133 sites in the alleged layout of the Society. The schedule property described in the Memorandum of plaint, stating that, the alleged residential bearing No. 772 is comprised in several survey number lands, on the face of the records is not identifiable and at no imagination the plaintiff can contend that the alleged site is comprised and formed out of land Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawar village. The alleged residential site described in the schedule of the Memorandum of Plaint is non existing property and the same is not identifiable in the facts and circumstances, no revenue sketch of City Survey facts Sketch is produced for identification of the location of the alleged site. That apart no title deeds, allotment orders are not placed before this court to established the alleged right of the plaint. The alleged Layout Plan relied upon by the plaintiff said to have been approved by BDA, subsequently came to be cancelled with immediate effect under resolution in Subject No. 115/2012 in the Authority Meeting of BDA held on 16-05-2012. BDA having reconsidered the matter pursuant to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and Hon'ble Apex Court, has passed the said resolution and communication letter dated: 21-06-2012 has been addressed to the society and thereby the resolution has been given effect. Therefore, there is no valid approved sanctioned layout plan by the competent Planning 45 OS.NO.3825/2018 authority, BDA identifying the residential site claimed by the plaintiff. That upon the resolution passed by the BDA, Zocal Authority namely Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike initiated proceedings for cancellation of kathas, issuing notices to such persons claiming as allottes/ purchasers of sites. The plaintiffs are not approached with clean hands, with an intention to knock off the suit schedule property witch is not at all existence has failed to produced material documents to prove her alleged right on the suit schedule property. On the other hand he has made contradictory averment about the quashing of acquisition proceedings and other actual facts intentionally therefore the plaintiffs is guilty of suppression of true facts. The plaintiffs has failed to prove their title much less possession over the property and not entitle for any of the relief sought for. The state empowered by the High Court and Apex Court judgments, has taken back the compensation amount and returned lands and possession to the vendors of the Defendant No.1. When the compensation is also taken back by the state, the claim of the plaintiffs against the Defendants is not maintainable. If at all plaintiffs has grievance, she should filed against the government, but not on the defendant No.1. boanfide purchaser from rightful owners. Therefore very the plaintiffs is bad in the eyes of law. The Plaintiffs has not properly valued the suit valuation made in paragraph -44 of the Memorandum of and the valuation slip filed are incorrect and contrary to material on records and the prevailing guidance value prescribed by the State Government Under notification No. CVC 25/2014-15, Bengaluru, 46 OS.NO.3825/2018 dated:28-03-2016 came into effect from 01-04-2016. The market value prescribed as per the guidance value of Housing society site is Rs.35,600/- per square meter and the dimension of alleged residential sites in claimed by the plaintiffs is each 40ft x 60 ft. total are is 9600 sq ft. The guidance value per square foot is Rs.3,307,32 Ps and as such the market value based on the guidance value of the alleged residential site is Rs.79,37,570/- for each site However, the market value stated by the plaintiff which is erroneous, and on the lower side contrary to the guidance value prescribed by the state Government. The plaintiff is liable to pay Court Fee as provided Under Section 24(a) of KCF and SV Act as the plaintiff are not in lawful possession and enjoyment of the alleged suit schedule property. Therefore, the court fee paid by the plaintiff for seeking the reliefs is insufficient and the plaintiff are bound to make property valuation and pay property Court Fee. The defendant No.1 humbly prays for preliminary issue with regard to the valuation and incorrect payment of Court fee and decide the same before proceeding with the suit. The plaintiff have no manner of any rights, title or interest much less possession over the alleged suit schedule property as per records as on date of filing the suit and the alleged residential site is not comprised in land Sy No.49/3, presently S No.49/7 measuring an extent of 300 Acres belonging to defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief prayed in the suit. The suit liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.On Limitation: The present is hit by law of limitation as the Plaintiffs are not the bonafide purchasers as they 47 OS.NO.3825/2018 are having full knowledge of the litigation and pendecy of the proceedings had purchased the suit schedule property. More over being aware about the registered sale deed in the name of defendant No10703-2014 have not filed the above suit with time frame of law of limitation. On this count the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. Non-joinder of Necessary parties: The defendant No.1 respectfully submits that, based on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government exercising the power of eminent domain passed order No. RD 134 LAQB 2007 dated: 05-02-2009 and directed that the Lands be restored to the erstwhile Land owners. That in compliance of the Government order the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, has taken steps and on redeposit of compensation amount awarded in a sum of Rs.17,63,022/- in respect of three items of lands including lands Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village, measuring an extent 6 Acres 36 guntas and 0- 14 guntas kharab land, issued Subardu Patra dated: 25-03-2009, handing over the possession to the land owners. But the plaintiff intentionally not made government or Special land acquisition officer as parties to suppress true facts before the court. On this count the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. The various facts and averments and allegations made in the memorandum of plaint are not specifically traversed herein are not correct and the same are hereby denied. In the facts and circumstance of the case if the above case is decreed the defendant No.1 will be put to grate hard ship and injury. On the other hand if the same is dismissed no hard 48 OS.NO.3825/2018 ship will be caused to the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Based on these pleadings, this court has framed issues as under:
1. Whether plaintiffs proves that they are the lawful and absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs proves that alleged sale deed dated 07.03.2013 executed by defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of land Sy No.49/3 is not binding upon them ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual/permanent injunction as prayed in the suit ?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit is barred by limitation ?
5. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties ?
6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the suit ?
7. What order or decree ?
5. Plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked as many as 23 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 and closed his side of evidence. The defendants did not adduce their side of evidence and did not exhibit any documents on their behalf.
49OS.NO.3825/2018
6. Heard the arguments. I have carefully scrutinized entire records before me.
7. My findings on the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 to 4 : Donot arise for consideration;
Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.6 : Donot arise for consideration;
Issue No.7 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.5: This being vital issue taken
first.
This suit is filed for Declaration and injunction. This being a right in REM, it is necessary for the plaintiff''s to prove their title to suit schedule property and also that their vendor had a good title to suit schedule property to convey the same in favour of plaintiff's.
9. Plaintiff's case that they had jointly purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 24/09/2005 for valuable sale consideration from G.Prasad Reddy in the layout formed by "Vyalikaval House Building Co-
Operative Society Ltd. and have been put in possession of the Suit Schedule Property under the terms of he registered sale deeds/registered document and continued to be in possession of the said Suit Schedule Property. Katha standing in their name and has been paying property taxes and continue to remain in possession of the same.
50OS.NO.3825/2018
10. Further that, Sri. G.Prasad Reddy (vendor of Plaintiff) had in turn purchased the Suit Schedule Property for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. The said Vyalikaval House Building Co- Operative Society Limited had put the said Sri. G.Prasad Reddy in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and Khata in respect of the Suit Schedule Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority vide its Order bearing Sl.No.BDA/RON/C3/784/2004-05 dated 10/06/2004 in favour of Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had passed the resolution dated 12/09/2003 approving the Layout plan submitted by Vyalikavai House Building Co- Operative Society Limited in respect of Land measuring 98 acres 21 guntas in Nagavara Village Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara village is a part of the said approved layout plan.
11. To be noted, in this suit G. Prasad Reddy said to be Plaintiff's vendor and he said to have purchased the suit schedule property from Vayalikaval House Building Society and Sree Shakthi Promoters and Developers ® Partnership Firm called as developer/promoter who all have not been made parties to this suit. As said above, this being suit for declaration of title, Plaintiff's vendor and Vayalikaval House Building Society are necessary parties to this suit where this being a 51 OS.NO.3825/2018 right in rem, Plaintiff's have to prove their title through there vendor to show that there vendor had a good title to convey suit schedule property.
12. Before Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.5755-5756/2011 in Moreshar s/o Yadaorao Mahajan Vs Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi(D) THR. Lrs. & Others (DB) dated 27.09.2022 - held in para 18 that necessary party is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.
13. Though the authority is pertaining to specific performance, it holds good to this suit as without making his vendor G. Prasad Reddy and Vayalikaaval House Building Society as parties to this suit without whom no effective order can be passed by this court, this suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, concluded that defendant No.1 proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, Issue No.5 is held in the Affirmative.
14. ISSUES NO.1 TO 4 AND 6: For my findings on Issue No.5 , these issues donot arise for consideration.
15. ISSUE NO.7: in view of my finding on issues No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:
52OS.NO.3825/2018 ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw Decree accordingly.
*** (Dictated to the Stenographer computerized and print out taken by him, revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court today the 1 st day of February, 2023).
(S.G.SUNITHA) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiffs:
PW.1 : S. Balasubramanian
Witness examined on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 General Power of attorney dated 16.09.2005.
Ex.P.2 Registered Sale Deed dated 24.09.2005.
Ex.P.3 Katha Pathra issued by BDA dated 05.11.20005.
Ex.P.4 Certificate issued by BBMP dated 22.09.2015.
Ex.P.5 Tax Register Extract dated 22.09.2015.
53
OS.NO.3825/2018
Ex.P.6 Certificate by BBMP dated 14.10.2015.
Ex.P7 Tax Register Extract dated 14.10.2015.
Ex.P8 Property Tax paid receipt in the year 2016 -
2017 and 2018 - 2019.
Ex.P9 Registered Sale Deed dated 31.03.2004.
Ex.P10 Possession Certificate dated 05.04.2004.
Ex.P11 Certified copy of Layout Plan.
Ex.P12 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 07.03.2013.
Ex.P13 Certified copy of Order sheet in WP 29139 -
29143 of 2015 (4 pages).
Ex.P14 Certified copy of Order sheet in WP 29139 -
29143 of 2015 dated 25.08.2015.
Ex.P.15 Certified copy of order dated 19.07.2016. Ex.P16 Certified copy of Gazette Notification dated 21.02.1986.
Ex.P17 Certified copy of Notification dated 05.05.1988. Ex.P18 Certified copy of order in WP No. 9815/1994 dated 18.02.1997.
Ex.P19 Certified copy of Gazette Notification dated 29.07.1999.
Ex.P20 Certified copy of compliance report dated 07.05.2012.
Ex.P21 Certified copy of order dated 24.04.2014. Ex.P22 Certified copy of order dated 25.09.2014. Ex.P23 Certified copy of order dated 14.07.2011 of WP 11910 - 11914 of 2009.
Documents marked on behalf of Defendants: - Nil -
VII. ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.