Bangalore District Court
Smt. Gangambika vs The University Of Agricultural on 18 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH74)
Present: Sri.YAMANAPPA BAMMANAGI,
B.A., LL.B., (Spl.,)
LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE.
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2019.
O.S. No.16943/2006
Plaintiff: 1. Smt. Gangambika,
(Since deceased by Lr's)
1(a) Sri.V. Pradeep Kumar,
S/o. Late. V. Muddanna,
Aged about 49 years,
R/a. No. 873,
9th Cross, 2nd Stage,
Dr. Modi Road,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore 560 086.
1(b) Smt. Poornima Vonthi,
W/o. Mahesh Kerudi,
Aged about 44 years,
Now R/a. 3414 Belgrove
Circle, San Jose. CA9548.
And also residing at
No. 873,
9th Cross, 2nd Stage,
Dr. Modi Road,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore 560 086.
1(c) Sri. V. Prabhudev,
S/o. Late. V. Muddanna,
Aged about 41 years,R/a. No.
873,
9th Cross, 2nd Stage,
Dr. Modi Road,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore 560 086.
2. Smt. P. Susheela,
W/o. G.S. Prakash,
D/o. Late Rudramma,
Aged about 61 years,
R/a. 1st Cross, M.C. Colony,
Someshwarapuram,
Tumkur.
3. Smt. Y.C. Chandrika,
W/o. Vishwaradhya,
D/o. Late. Rudramma,
R/a. No. 71, 4th Cross,
3rd main, Basaveshwara
Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore 560 040.
4. Sri.G.B. Chandrashekar
Aradhya,
S/o. G.S. Basavaraaradhya,
Husband of Late.
Smt. Y.C. Kanthamani,
Aged about 63 years,
R/a. Ladies Corner,
Railway Station Road,
Near B.T.S Bus stand,
Yelahanka,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore 560 064.
5. Sri. Ramaa Veerasai,
S/o. Late. Dr.D.V. Daran,
Aged about 60 years,
R/a. B302, Cambridge Apts.
Cambridge Road, Ulsoor,
Bangalore 560 008.
( Sri. Y.A. Nagaraj - Adv.)
V/S
Defendant: 1. The University of Agricultural
Sciences,
Employees House Building
Cooperative Society Ltd.,
Hebbal,
Bangalore 560 024
Rep. by its Secretary.
2. The special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Visveswaraiah centre,
Bangalore 560 001.
(By Sri. - Adv.)
Date of Institution of the suit 12.10.2006
Nature of the (Suit or pronote,
suit for declaration and
Suit for Injunction
possession, suit for injunction,
etc.)
Date of the commencement of
10.12.2009
recording of the Evidence.
4 O.S. No.16943/2006
Date on which the Judgment was
18.11.2019
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 13 01 07
(Yamanappa Bammanagi)
73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
(CCH74), Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and its office bearers, agents, workmen, such other persons claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case:
It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 are the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 2 acres 14 guntas, out of the total extent of 7 acres 14 guntas, in Sy.No.30 of Shivanahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, which is suit schedule property. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and Smt. Y.C. Kanthamani are the daughters of the late 5 O.S. No.16943/2006 Rudramma, the predecessor in title to suceed to the item No.1 of the schedule property, under a panchayat palu patti dated 12.03.1980, the mutation was effected in their favour vide MR No. 10/9596. One of the daughter of late Rudramma; i.e., Smt.Kanthamani died living behind her, her husband, defendant No.4 to succeed her share in property.
3. The plaintiff No.5 is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 2 acres 7 guntas, 3 guntas karab, in Sy.No. 34/12 of Shivanahalli village, which is shown as item No.2 of the schedule property. The plaintiff No.5 has purchased item No.2 under the registered sale deed, dated 31.01.1996.
4. Further contended in the plaint that schedule item properties are in the possession of the plaintiff's and they are personally cultivating the land and they have planted coconut and sapota plantation in the said items of property.
5. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that, the land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas, out of the item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties, were proposed for acquisition in favour of 6 O.S. No.16943/2006 defendant No.1 thorugh the defendant No.2 and the preliminary notification under section 4 (1) of Land acquisition Act 1894, SR No. 5/8990, dated 30.03.1990, published in Karnataka Gazette Notification dated 12.04.1990 and forwarded it in a final notification No. RD 209 AQB 89, dated 08.05.1991, issued under section 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act 1894, published in Karnataka Gazette notification on 23.05.1991. In pursuance to the said notifications, award in LAC No. 15 and 16/199192 came to be passed on 08.09.1995 by the defendant No.2. However, neither award amount claimed, received nor possession of the schedule items property are taken by the defendants and plaintiff's are in continued possession of the suit schedule property.
6. Further contended in the plaint that the notifications of acquisition were challenged by the vendor of plaintiff No.5 and mother of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 in WP No. 28409/1991 and WP No. 28410/1991 before the Hon'ble High Court, said writ petitions were allowed as per order dated 14.02.1997, upholding the notifications referred above, same were challenged in WA No. 24212529/1997, the WA were also dismissed by the order dated 7 O.S. No.16943/2006 18.08.1999. As per the order dated 18.08.1999, the Lordship have held that these things have abated as covered by the judgment reported in 1999 (1) KAR LG 75 (DB). But, the said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in review petition No. 494/2000 and said review petition was allowed upholding acquisition notifications.
7. During the pendency of WP's, awards were came to be passed, but due to pendency of the above writ petitions, the possession of the suit items property has not been taken by the defendant No.2, not handed over to the defendant No.1, as such, the plaintiffs are in continued peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
8. When review petition No. 494/2000 was allowed upholding the notifications of acquisition. As against the order in review petitions the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under SLP No.18153/2005 same was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff's have presented their representation before the Government demanding to withdraw the acquisition of suit items properties. In pursuant to the said representations, the Revenue Inspector of defendant No.2 has drawn a Mahazar, prepared sketch through surveyor of defendant 8 O.S. No.16943/2006 No.2. As per the Mahazar, schedule items are situated abutting to the road connecting Jakkur village and Yelahanka, the suit items properties are situated at corner of the lands proposed for acquisition.
9. The revenue inspector of defendant No.2 has forwarded his report to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, together with copies of Mahazar, Sketch, through letter dated 03.02.2006, intimating the Government to take appropriate action on the representations made by the plaintiff's in respect of suit schedule properties. So, the suit schedule properties are excluded in the official memorandum referred above. The representation presented by the plaintiff's to the Government is still under consideration and pending before the Government for withdrawing the acquisition in respect of suit schedule property.
10. So, the plaintiff's are entitled to protect their possession of the suit schedule property. Such being the fact, on 09.10.2006, some persons claiming to be the officials of defendant No.1, had attempted to interfere with plaintiff's peaceful 9 O.S. No.16943/2006 possession of the suit schedule property without having any right, interest over the suit schedule property. Hence this suit.
11. In pursuance of the suit summons the defendant appeared through their counsels and filed their written statements. The defendant No.1 contended in his written statement that the plaintiff has filed this suit suppressing the material facts and same is liable to be dismissed. Defendant No.1 is the Housing Cooperative Society, registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Act, this society has formed layout for the employees of the University of Agricultural Science, Hebbur, Bengaluru, for the purpose of forming the residential building exclusively for its employees.
12. Further contended that the land measuring 34 acres 7 guntas, situated at Shivanahalli was acquired by State Government by preliminary notification under section 4 (1) of LA Act, published on 30.03.1990, notification under section 6 (1) of LA Act, published on 09.05.1991, same was published in Karnataka Official Gazette dated 23.05.1991, including land bearing Sy. Nos. 34/1 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas, belonging to 10 O.S. No.16943/2006 plaintiff No.5 and Sy.No. 30 measuring 1 acres 14 guntas, belonging to plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4, these lands have been acquired by the defendant, plaintiff's have challenged notification under section 4(1) and 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act and in WP No. 28409, 28410/1999, after the Hon'ble High Court, WP's were allowed on 14.02.1997 and same were challenged in WA No. 2421/1997 and 2529/1997 filed by the defendant No.1 were also came to be dismissed, same were challenged in review petition No. 494/2000 and 218/2000, same were allowed, upholding the notifications and acquisition. As against the said order passed in review petition, the plaintiffs have challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 1277775/2005. Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the acquisition. Hence, plaintiff have no right, title, interest and possession of the suit schedule property in question.
13. The defendant No.1 has already deposited Rs. 43,31,519/ with defendant No.2 and possession has also taken by the Government, under section 16(2) of the Act, Revenue records of Sy.No. 30, 1 acre 14 guntas and Sy.No. 34/12, 1 acre 37 11 O.S. No.16943/2006 guntas, in the name of the Government, in possession of defendant No.2. Hence, plaintiffs are not the owners and in possession of the suit properties and defendant No.1 has denied the right and possession of the plaintiff and denied contents of plaint parawise.
14. The defendant No.2 has filed his written statement contending that the suit filed by plaintiff is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed with cost. Further contended that it is the second round litigation, earlier mother of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and vendor of the plaintiff No.5, filed case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, same were dismissed.
15. Further it is the case of defendant No.2 that the plaintiffs have challenged the acquisition proceedings before this, so this court has no jurisdiction to try the same. So, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Hence, on this count only, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
16. Further defendant No.2 contended that the second defendant acquired the suit schedule properties for the House Building Cooperative Society of the first defendant, same was acquired in accordance with due process of law, possession of the acquired land was taken as per Section 16 (2) of the LA Act. Gazette Notification was published on 26.09.1996, hence this 12 O.S. No.16943/2006 court has no jurisdiction. Plaintiff has misrepresented, misleading the material fact, with this the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
16 (a). Initially this suit is filed before the CCH21, in view of the Notification No.ADMI(A)205/2019, dated 30.3.2019, this case has been transferred to this court as per order dated 06.6.2019 from CCH21. And suit was called out in this court for the first time on 07.6.2019.
17. On basis of pleadings of parties my learned Predecessor had framed following: ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are in lawful possession of the suit property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference by the defendants ?
3. Whether the plaintiff are entitled for permanent injunction ?
4. What order or decree?
18. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff No.1 died and her Lrs brought on record. Plaintiff No.4 is examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and Pw1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for defendant No.1. 13 O.S. No.16943/2006
19. The authorized person of defendant No.1 is examined as Dw1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.17. Heard argument on both sides.
20. My answer to above issues are as follows: Issue No.1: In the Negative, Issue No.2: In the Negative, Issue No.3: In the Negative, Issue No.4: As per the final order, for the following: REASONS
21. ISSUE No.1: Plaintiff No.4 is examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. Pw1 is examined by filing affidavit by way of examination in chief, reiterating the averments of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that, plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 are the owners and in possession of the property item No.1, measuring 2 acres 14 guntas, in Sy.No. 30, out of total extent of 7 acres 14 guntas, situated at Shivanahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru. Further Pw1 deposed that the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 are the daughters of one Smt. Rudramma, who is predecessor in title to succeed item No.1 of the schedule property, under a Panchayat 14 O.S. No.16943/2006 Palu Patti dated 12.03.1980 and mutation entry has been changed in the name of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 . Further Pw1 deposed that Smt. Kanthamani, who is daughter of Smt. Rudramma, died leaving behind her husband defendant No.4 to succeed her share in the suit property. Further deposed that plaintiff No.5 is the absolute owner and in possession of item No.2 of the schedule property, purchased the same under sale deed, dated 31.01.1996. Such being the fact, the defendants, without having any rights, interest and possession over the suit properties, had interfered in the possession of the suit schedule property.
22. In support of oral evidence, the plaintiff has produced 20 documents, which have been marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. Ex.P.1 is the RTC in respect of item No.1 of suit property, Ex.P.2 is the mutation extract, Ex.P.3 is the RTC of Sy.No. 30, Ex.P.4 is the RTC extract, Ex.P.5 is the Panchayat Palu Patti, Ex.P.6 is the RTC extract, Ex.P.7 to 15 are the Tax paid receipts, Ex.P.16 is the Gazette notification u/s. 6 (1) of LA Act, Ex.P.17 is the certified copy of report of surveyor, Ex.P.18 is the certified copy of Mahazar , Ex.P.19 is the certified copy of report of Revenue 15 O.S. No.16943/2006 Inspector and Ex.P.20 is the certified copy of the sketch of Sy.No.
30. On persual of the oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs it is clear that the plaintiffs are absolute owner of the suit schedule item Nos. 1 and 2. It is also clear from the material placed before the court by the plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 had acquired the suit schedule properties by issuing notification u/s. 4 (1) and 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the plaintiffs have challenged the said acquired proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition Nos. 28409/1991, 28410/1991 and Hon'ble High Court was pleased to allowed the writ petitions, as per the order dated 14.02.1997 and quashed the notifications marked at Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8. As against the said decision, in the above said writ petitions, the defendant No.1 herein has preferred W.A.No. 2421 and 2529/1997 and same were dismissed by the order, dated 18.08.1999, which has been reported in 1999 (1) KAR LJ 75 (DB), in the case of The University of Agricultural Sciences Employees House Building Co operative Society, Hebbal V/s. SLAO, Bengaluru and Others. The order of Hon'ble Division Bench, dated 18.08.1999, was 16 O.S. No.16943/2006 challenged in the review petition No. 494/2000, before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to allowed the review petition upholding the notifications, issued for acquisition of suit schedule property. And it is also clear from the evidence of Pw1 itself that the present plaintiffs have challenged the order passed in review petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and same was rejected. Now it is clear that the plaintiffs have made unsuccessful attempt to get quash the acquisition proceedings in respect of suit schedule property and it is also clear from the material placed before the court that the matter was went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the acquisition proceedings in respect of suit schedule property. That apart, the present suit is for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is a clear cut case of the defendants that the defendant No.2 has acquired the suit schedule property and possession was taken as per Ex.D.8. I have perused Ex.D.8 it is clear that the defendant 17 O.S. No.16943/2006 No.2 has taken possession of suit schedule property as per Sec. 16 (2) of Land Acquisition Act.
23. The defendant No.1 is examined as Dw1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.17. Ex.D.1 is the authorization letter dated 10.08.2019, Ex.D.2 is the certified coy of preliminary notification dated 30.03.1990, Ex.D.3 is the copy of survey sketch dated 26.03.1991, Ex.D.4 is the certified copy of final notification dated 09.05.1991, Ex.D.5 is the certified copy of corrigendum dated 28.04.1994, Ex.D.6 is the copy of award dated 08.09.1995, Ex.D.7 is the certified copy of notification u/s. 16(2) of LA Act dated 11.09.1996, Ex.D.8 is the certified copy of possession certificate dated 28.11.2007, Ex.D.9 is the certified copy of review petition 494/2000, Ex.D.10 is the certified copy of the judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed in MFA No. 14741/2007, Ex.D.11 is the certified copy of order dated 11.06.2013 in W.P.No. 27449 27452/2011, Ex.D.12 is the certified copy of RTC, Ex.D.13 is the certified copy of mutation, Ex.D.14 is the computerized copy of RTC survey No. 34, Ex.D.15 is the certified copy of survey sketch, 18 O.S. No.16943/2006 Ex.D.16 is the original work order, Ex.D.17 is the amended work order dated 13.01.2015.
24. Ex.D.5 reflects the correction of survey number appeared in notification u/s. 6 (1) of Land Acquisition Act and it is clear that the typographical error has been rectified through Ex.D.5. Ex.D.7 reflects the possession of the acquired land has been taken from the plaintiffs. On perusal of the Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.8 it is clear that the defendant No.2 has acquired the suit schedule properties for the purpose of defendant No.1 and sites have been formed and allotted to the employees of defendant No.1. It is also clear from the Ex.D.9 to Ex.D.11 that the plaintiffs have challenged the acquisition proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the acquisition proceedings of defendant No.2 in respect of suit schedule property is sustainable under the law. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence it is clear that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of the suit. Plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule 19 O.S. No.16943/2006 property at the time of filing the suit. On considering the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties I hold that, plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of the suit. Hence, I answer this issue in the Negative.
25. ISSUE No.2: It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the suit schedule properties and defendant No.2 has acquired the suit schedule property for the purpose of residential construction for the employees of defendant No.1. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that they have challenged the acquisition proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 28409/1991 and W.P. No. 28410/1991 and same were allowed and notification issued by the defendant No.1 u/s. 4 (1) and 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act and in the said writ petition both notifications have been quashed as against the said judgment passed in the above said writ petitions. The present defendant No.1 has challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in W.A. No. 2421 and 2529/1997 and writ appeals were also dismissed by the order dated 18.08.1999. The first defendant had challenged the said order passed in writ petition in R.P.No. 494/2000 before the 20 O.S. No.16943/2006 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The said review petitions were allowed upholding the notifications issued for acquisition. As against the said order in R.P.No. 494/2000, the plaintiffs have challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 18153/2005 and same was dismissed. So it is clear from these materials and admitted fact that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit schedule property, which have been acquired by the defendant No.2 for the purpose of construction of residential houses for the employees of defendant No.1.
26. Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.14 and Ex.D.15 clearly establish that after acquisition the defendant No.2 has taken the possession of the acquired land and handed over to the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 had constructed residential house and suit schedule properties are in the possession of defendant No.1. Ex.D.12 RTC of Sy.No.30 of Shivanahalli village, reflects the possession of the defendant No.1. Ex.D.13 mutation entries, reflects that after acquisition defendant No.2 has taken possession of the suit schedule properties and thereafter handed over to the defendant No.1. Ex.D.14 is also RTC of Sy.No.34/1, reflects the 21 O.S. No.16943/2006 possession of suit schedule property. Ex.D.15 is the certified copy of survey sketch of Sy.No.34/1 of Shivanahalli village. I have perused carefully Ex.D.15, it is clear that the land bearing Sy.No.34/1 has been acquired and handed over possession of the acquired property to the defendant No.1 for the purpose of construction of residential house. On careful perusal of the revenue entries in Ex.D.12 to Ex.D.15 it is clear that suit properties are in the possession of defendant No.1. The revenue entries are presumptive evidentiary value as per Sec. 35 of Indian Evidence Act. Sec.35 of the Indian Evidence Act, reads thus:
35.Relevancy of entry in public [record or an electronic record] made in performance of duty.__ An entry in any public or other official book, register or [record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or [record 22 O.S. No.16943/2006 or an electronic record] is kept, is itself a relevant fact.
Editor's Note._The words "Fact", "Facts in issue" and 'Relevant" are defined in Section 3 of this Act.
27. In support of my opinion I relied on the decision reported in ILR 2004 KAR.1074 in case of Naganna Vs. Shivanna. The lordship have held at Head note B. thus:
REBUTTAL EVIDENCE - entries in the ROR carries presumptive value in law
- if there is no convincing evidence to rebutt the legal presumption, lessor relief of injunction can be granted. But the declaration title cannot be granted.
28. Further relied on decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 901 in case of Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and Others. The lordship have held at Head note B. reads thus:23 O.S. No.16943/2006
Evidence Act, (1 of 1872), Ss. 35, 114 revenue records not document of title it merely raises presumption of possession.
The lordship have discussed at Para 12 of the judgment, which reads thus:
A revenue record is not a
document of title. It merely raises
a presumption in regard to
possession. Presumption of
possession and/or continuity
thereof both forward and
backward can also be raised
under Section 110 of the the
Indian Evidence Act. The Courts
below, were, therefore, required
to appreciate the evidence
keeping in view the correct legal
principles in mind.
24 O.S. No.16943/2006
29. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff it is clear that suit properties are in possession of the defendant No.1. So, plaintiff failed to prove the possession of the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, there is no material before the court to hold that the defendants have interfered with the possession of suit schedule properties. Hence, I answer this issue in the Negative.
30. ISSUE No.3: It is the case of the plaintiff that they are the owners and in possession of the suit schedule properties and defendant No.2 has acquired the suit schedule property for the purpose of construction of residential houses for the employees of defendant No.1 in accordance with law. Further it is contended by the plaintiffs that they have challenged the acquisition proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No. 28409/1991 and W.P.No. 28410/1991 and same were allowed quashing the notifications in respect of suit schedule property as per the order dated 14.02.1997 and said orders were challenged in W.A. No. 2421 and 2529/1997 and said writ appeals were also dismissed as per the order dated 18.8.1999. The order dated 25 O.S. No.16943/2006 18.08.1999 of Hon'ble Division Bench has been challenged in review petition before the Hon'ble High Court Karnataka in R.P. No. 494/2000 and said review petition was allowed upholding the acquisition proceedings. As against the said order in revision petition, the plaintiffs have filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 18153/2005, same was dismissed.
Plaintiffs further contended that, after dismissal of the special leave petition the plaintiffs have presented the representation before the Government to withdraw the acquisition in respect of suit schedule property and same is pending before the Government. Now the question is that this suit being the suit for injunction and issue involved in the suit is possession and interference. As already discussed that after acquisition the defendant No.2 has taken possession of the suit schedule property and handed over the same to the defendant No.1. Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.17 clearly shows that the possession of the suit schedule property were taken away from the plaintiffs for the purpose for which the lands have been acquired and at present it is clear that suit property is in the possession of defendant No.1. On 26 O.S. No.16943/2006 considering the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, it is clear that plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession and interference of the defendant. Under such circumstances, I hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought in the plaint. Hence, I answer this point in the Negative.
32. ISSUE No.4: In view of the discussion made on issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
No order as to Costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Typist directly on computer system, computerized by her, after online correction by me, printout taken by her and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of November, 2019).
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, The suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
No order as to Costs.
27 O.S. No.16943/2006
Draw decree accordingly.
M.H. Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH74) SCHEDULE PROPERTY Item No.1 : All that piece and parcel of garden land measuring 2 acre 14 guntas out of 7 acres 14 guntas in Sy.No. 30, situated at Shivanahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and bounded on :
East by: Sy.No. 30 remaining land ;
West by: Road Yelhanka to Jakkur ;
North by: Sy.No. 28 ;
South by: Sy.No. 34 .
Item No.2 : All that piece and parcel of garden land measuring 2 acre 7 guntas and 3 guntas of karab in Sy.No. 34/12, situated at Shivanahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and bounded on :
East by: Sy.No. 34 remaining land ;
West by: Road Yelhanka to Jakkur ;
North by: Sy.No. 30 ;
South by: Sy.No. 36 .
28 O.S. No.16943/2006
(Yamanappa Bammanagi)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH74)
ANNEXURES
List of witness examined for the plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 Sri. G.B. Chandrashekar Aradya List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 RTC Ex.P.2 Mutation Extract Ex.P.3 & 4 RTC Extracts Ex.P.5 Panchayath Palipath Ex.P.6 RTC Extract Ex.P.7 to 15 Tax receipts Ex.P.16 Tue copy of the 6(1) Gazette notificaThe suit
filed by the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
No order as to Costs.
Draw decree accordingly. tion
Ex.P.17 C/C of report of surveyor
Ex.P.18 C/C of the Mahazar
Ex.P.19 C/C of the report of Revenue Inspector
29 O.S. No.16943/2006
Ex.P.20 C/C of sketch of Sy.No. 30
List of witness examined for the defendant's side :
D.W.1 Sri. Mahesh. M.S. List of document exhibited for the defendant's side:
Ex.D.1 Authorization letter dated 10.08.2019 Ex.D.2 C/C of preliminary notification dated 26.03.1991 Ex.D.3 C/C of survey sketch dated 26.03.1991 Ex.D.4 C/C of final notification dated 09.05.1991 Ex.D.5 C/C of corrigendum dated 28.04.1994 Ex.D.6 C/C of award dated 08.09.1995 Ex.D.7 C/C of notification u/s. 16(2) of LA Act dated 11.09.1996 Ex.D.8 C/C of possession certificate dated 28.11.2007 Ex.D.9 C/C of review petition 494/2000 Ex.D.10 C/C of Judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed in MFA No. 14741/2007 Ex.D.11 C/C of order dated 11.06.2013 in W.P. No. 2744927452/2011 Ex.D.12 C/C of RTC Ex.D.13 C/C of mutation Ex.D.14 Computerized copy of RTC survey No. 34 Ex.D.15 C/C of survey sketch Ex.D.16 Work Order Ex.D.17 Amended work order dared 13.01.2015 30 O.S. No.16943/2006 (Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH74) Case called out.
Judgement is not ready. For judgment, call on 18.11.2019.
LXXIII A.C.C.J. & S.J., B'luru (CCH74) Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate order).
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
No order as to Costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru.(CCH74) 31 O.S. No.16943/2006