Bangalore District Court
L.A.C./153/2003 on 29 October, 2022
1
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 29 th day of October 2022.
PRESENT:
Smt. Sheila B.M., M.Com.,LLM.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
: LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO.153/2003 :
Claimant :
1) Sri. Y.G. Ramkumar
S/o Sri. Y.N. Gangadhara Shetty,
R/at No.688/689, 12th Cross,
Jayanagar 7th Block,
Bangalore-560082.
2) Sri. Giridhar G. Yadalamma
S/o Sri. Y.N. Gangadhara Shetty,
R/at No.49, 40th Cross,
Jayanagar 8th Block,
Bangalore-560082.
3) Sri. Y.G. Vijayakumar
S/o Sri. Y.N. Gangadhara Shetty,
R/at No.744, 13th Cross,
Jayanagar 7th Block,
Bangalore-560082.
4) Sri. Y.G. Kashinath
S/o Sri. Y.N. Gangadhara Shetty,
R/at No.49, 40th Cross,
Jayanagar 8th Block,
Bangalore-560082.
5) Sri. Y.A. Subramanya
S/o Late Sri.Y.S Adinarayana Shetty,
2
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
R/at No.694/695, 12th Cross,
Jayanagar 7th Block,
Bangalore-560082.
6) Sri. Y.G. Dwarakanath
R/at No.746, 13th Cross,
West Kanakapura Road,
Jayanagar 7th Block,
Bangalore-560082.
7) Smt. Hanumakka
W/o Late Lingaiah,
Dead by Lrs:
7(a) Manjula
D/o late. Lakshmaiah
Aged about 39 years
residing at Veerabhadranapalya villages
Veerabhadranapalya Town
Doddaballapura
7(b) Smt. Giriyamma
W/o late. Anjinappa M.S.
Aged about 65 years
7(c) Sri. Manjunatha M.A.
S/o late. Anjinappa M.S.
Aged about 43 years
7(d) Smt. Kalavathi M.A.
D/o late. Anjinappa M.S.
Aged about 40 years
7(e) Sri. Sanjeevaraju
S/o late. Anjinappa M.S.
Aged about 38 years
7(f) Sri. Nagahanumaiah M.A.
3
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
S/o late. Anjinappa M.S.
Aged about 36 years
All are residing at Motagondanahalli village
Magadi Taluk
Ramanagara District
8) Sri. Chikka Nagappa @ Chikkalingaiah
S/o Lingaiah
Dead by his LRs
8(a) Sri Bylappa
Aged about 38 years
S/o Muniyappa @ Munivenkatappa
8(b) Smt. Nagarathna
Aged about 27 years
D/o Muniyappa @ Munivenkatappa
8(c) Sri. Siddappa
Aged about 48 years
S/o Chikkanagaiah @ Chikka Lingaiah
8(d) Smt. Lakshmi
Aged about 38 years
W/o late. Ramaiah
8(e) Sri. Naveen Kumar
Aged about 20 years
S/o late. Ramaiah
8(f) Sri. Ananthkumar
Aged about 18 years
S/o late. Ramaiah
8(g) Smt. Padma
Aged about 38 years
4
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
W/o Mallaiah
D/o Chikkanagaiah @ Chikka Lingaiah
8(h) Sri. Nagaraj
Aged about 35 years
S/o Chikkanagaiah @ Chikka Lingaiah
All are residing at No. 13
1st cross, Janatha colony
Mariyappanapalya
Gnanabharati post
Bengaluru 560056.
9) Sri.Siddharamappa
S/o Late Sri. Poojarappa
Dead by LRs:
9(a) Smt. Thimmakka
W/o late. Siddaramappa @ Siddamarappa
Aged about 74 years
No.90, 2nd main road
near Maramma temple
Halagewaderahalli
R.R. Nagar
Bengaluru-560 098
9(b) Sri. Siddaraju S
S/o late. Siddaramappa @ Siddamarappa
Aged about 51 years
No.90, 2nd main road
near Maramma temple
Halagewaderahalli
R.R. Nagar
Bengaluru-560 098
9(c) Smt. Shivamma
W/o Mutturaju
5
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
Aged about 45 years
No.51/90,
near Maramma temple
Halagewaderahalli
R.R. Nagar
Bengaluru-560 098
9(d) Sri. S. Narayana
S/o late. Siddaramappa @ Siddamarappa
Aged about 44 years
No.90, 1st main, 2nd main road
near Maramma temple
Halagewaderahalli
R.R. Nagar
Bengaluru-560 098
9(e) Sri. Ramu S
S/o late. Siddaramappa @ Siddamarappa
Aged about 41 years
No.90,
near Maramma temple
Halagewaderahalli
R.R. Nagar
Bengaluru-560 098
9(f) Smt. Jyothi
W/o Ramesh H
Aged about 38 years
No.165, Kengeri main road
Near Doddaladamara road
Chunchanakuppe
Bengaluru-562 130
9(g) Latha S
W/o Hanumantharaju
Aged about 34 years
near Anjaneya temple
Vaddarahalli
Kadabagere
6
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
Bengaluru North
Bengaluru-561 130
9(h) Veenashree S
D/o late. Siddaramappa @ Siddamarappa
Aged about 32 years
No.90,
near Maramma temple
Halagewaderahalli
R.R. Nagar
Bengaluru-560 098
10) Sri. Siddha Arasappa
S/o Late Sri. Poojarappa
Since deceased by his LR's
(a) Devaraju.S
S/o late. Sidda Arasappa
Aged about 49 years,
(b) Smt. Bhagyamma
W/o Sri. Narayanappa,
D/o Late Sri. Sidda Arasappa,
Aged about 40 years.
(c) Siddeshkumar.S
S/o Late Sidda Arasappa
Aged about 35 years,
LR's10(a) to 10(c)
are residing at No.47
1st Cross, Maramma Temple Road,
Halagevaderahalli,
R.R. Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 098
11) Sri.Chikkamuniyappa
S/o Late Ellappa
7
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
12) Sri. Muniellaiah
S/o Late Ellappa
13) Sri. M. Raju
S/o Late Sri. Mallaiah
14) Smt. Alamelamma @ Alamellu
W/o Late Sri.Chowdappa
Since deceased by her LR's
(a) Sri. Venkatamma
D/o Late Smt. Alamelamma
Aged about 62 years,
(b) Sri. Narayana
S/o Late Sri. Venkatramanappa
Aged about 37 years,
(c) Smt. Venkatalakshmi
S/o Late Sri. Venkataramanappa
Aged about 29 years,
(d) Sri.Adisesha
S/o Late Sri. Venkataramanappa
Aged about 29 years,
(e) Sri.Manjunatha
S/o Late Sri. Venkateshappa
Aged about 31 years,
(f) Smt. Varalakshmi
D/o Late Sri. Venkateshappa
Aged about 30 years,
(g) Smt. Yashoda
D/o Late Sri. Venkateshappa
Aged about 20 years,
8
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
LR's 14(a) to 14(g) are residing at
No.20, Mariayappana Palya,
Jnana Bharathi Post,
Bengalore-560056.
Serial No.7 to 14 are residing at
Ramasandra Village,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
15) B.V. Shivaswamy
No.312, 3rd Block
Rajajinagara
Bengaluru 560 010.
16) Repeated name claimant No. 14
17) Kanthamma
W/o Shamachari
Sulikere village
Bengaluru South Taluka.
18) Sri. M. Jagadish
S/o Sri. G. Mallappa,
Aged about 66 years,
R/a No. 616, 2nd Main,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bangalore-560060.
19) Sri. B. Subhash Chandra Kini
S/o Late Sri. B. Shantharam Kini
Aged about 47 years,
R/a No. 204, 1st Floor,
Mahaveer willow Annex Apartment
K.S. Town, Bengalore-560060.
20) Sri. Venkatesh Kamath
S/o Late Sri. Kamalaksha Kamath
9
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
Aged about 49 years,
R/a No. 160, 1st Main, 1st Cross,
K.K Layout, Nagarbhavi,
Bangalore-560072.
21) Smt.Yellamma
D/o Late Ningellappa,
Aged about 59 years,
R/a No. 257, Maramma Temple
Halagevaderahalli, R.R. Nagar,
Bangalore-98.
22) Sharadhamma
D/o Late Ningellappa,
Aged about 45 years,
R/a No. 1150, Ullalu
Ullalu Upanagara,
Bangalore-56
23) Sakamma
D/o Late Ningellappa,
Aged about 51 years,
R/a No. 1150, Ullalu
Ullalu Upanagara,
Bangalore-56
24) H.R. Gangamma
W/o Late Rajanna
Aged about 44 years,
R/a No. 109, Near Vajreshwari
Theater Upanagara,
Ullalu Upanagara,
Bangalore-56
25) Anjinappa
S/o Late Ningellappa,
Aged about 46 years,
R/a No. 58,
Ullalu Upanagara,
10
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
Bangalore-56
26) Hanumakka
W/o Yallappa
Aged about 70 years,
R/a No.96, 3rd Cross
Halagevaderahalli, Bengalore South
Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bangalore-560098.
27) Smt. Rathnamma
D/o Yallappa,
Aged about 47 years,
R/a No.96,
Halagevaderahalli,
R.R Nagar Near Maramma Temple,
Bengalore South Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bangalore-560098.
28) Smt. Yallamma
D/o Yallappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Near Govt school Basveshwara Nagar,
Kithana Halli,
Bangalore North-562130
29) Smt. Gowramma
D/o Yallappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/a 27, Good Will English School,
Hagganahalli, Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560058.
30)Smt. Padma
D/o Yallappa,
Aged about 35 years
R/at 96, 3rd Cross,
Halagevaderahalli,
11
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
Bengalore South Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bangalore-560098.
(C-1 to 5 - Sri. YVP, Advocate)
(C-6 - Sri. YNS, Advocate)
(Lr's of C-7(a) - Sri.DSH, Advocate)
(Lr's of C-7(b) to (f) - Sri. RBM, Advocate)
(Lr's of C-9 - Sri. DP, Advocate)
(C-11 to 13 - Sri. GSM, Advocate)
(LR's C-8 - Sri. VGV, Advocate)
(C-10(a) to (c) - Sri. LDP, Advocate)
(Lr/C-14 - Sri. LSU, Advocate)
(C-15 - Sri. MCP, Advocate)
(C-18 - Sri. KBN, Advocate)
(C-19 & 20 - Sri. RBM, Advocate)
(C-21 to 30 - Sri. BMV, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT :
The Addl. Land Acquisition Officer
B.D.A.
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.MG, Advocate )
: JUDGMENT :
The ALAO has sent this reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, for apportionment of compensation.
12
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .2. The brief facts of the case is that the land bearing Sy.No.33/5 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas situated at Ramasandra village, Kengeri Hobli,, Bengaluru South Taluka has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Nagara layout. Preliminary notification was issued on 24.01.2002. Final notification was issued on 31.10.2002. The L.A.O. has fixed the award amount of Rs. 4,36,000/- per acre. As there was a dispute with regard to title, the L.A.O. has sent the reference to this Court and has deposited a sum of Rs. 17,18,295/-. The said amount has been kept in F.D. in the Karnataka Bank. City Civil Court Extension branch, Bengaluru.
.3. After receipt of the reference, this Court issued notice to both parties. Both parties have appeared through their counsel.
.4. The claimant No. 3 has filed claim statement stating that claimants and other family members are the owners who are in possession and enjoyment of the lands in Sy.No. 31, 32 and 33 of Ramasandra village, 13 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Kengeri Hobli,, Bengaluru South Taluka among others eversince the date of partition in the year 1974 that is for more than 31 years now. Even before that their predecessors in title were in possession and enjoyment of the lands as absolute owners. The allotment of lands as per partition deed in Ramasandra village are as under:
(a) Sri. Y.G. Madhusudan - 7 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No. 31 and 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No. 32,
(b) Sri. Y.G. Sriram Setty - 7 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No. 31 and 1 acre 23 guntas in Sy.No. 32,
(c) Y.G. Dwarakanath - 1 acre 34 guntas in Sy.No. 33, 25 guntas in Sy.No. 32 and 4 acres in Sy.No. 31,
(d) Y.G. Ramkumar - 6 acres 8 guntas in syo. 33, (e) Y.G. Vijayakumar - 4 acres in Sy.No. 33 and 2 acres 23 guntas in Sy.No. 32
(f) Giridhar G. Yadalam - 5 acres 13 guntas in Sy.No. 31, 33 guntas in Sy.No. 32 and 3 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No. 32, 14 L.A.C. No. 153/2003
(g) Y.G. Kashinath - 2 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No. 32, 3 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No. 33,
(h) Y.S. Subramanyam - 20 acres 1 guntas in Sy.No. 33 and 6 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No. 32.
.5. It is stated that as per the lands so partitioned, claimants 3 to 7 and their family members applied to the revenue authorities for phoding. The Tahsildar after considering the request, getting the report from the revenue inspector granted phoding in the year 1984. In the year 1987 the claimants 3 to 7 and their family members sought no objection from the Tahsildar for digging bore-wells, the Tahsildar granted no objection. It is stated that the claimants 3 to 7 and their family members are in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of their respective lands till the same were acquired by B.D.A. It is stated that an application was filed in the year 1990-91 before the Tahsildar for effecting change of khatha / mutation, the Tahsildar without issuing any notice to the claimants 3 to 7 had allowed the application. It is stated that the claimants 3 15 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 to 7 and other family members who came to know of the order of the Tahsildar granting mutation in-respect of the lands, have been filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No. 115/1991 which came to be dismissed on 27.07.1993. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the claimants 3 to 7 and other family members filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 32495/1993 and the Hon'ble High Court after hearing the parties before it passed an order dated 11.11.1998 setting aside the order of the Tahsildar and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal.
.6. Claimant No. 3 has filed additional claim statement stating that pursuant to the said partition, the lands in Sy.No. 33 fell to the share of claimants 1 to 6 herein, came to be phoded and sub survey numbers were allotted as under:
(a) An extent of 3 acres and 36 guntas owned by Mr. Y.G. Kasinath came to be assigned new Sy.No. 33/5;16
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
(b) An extent of 1 acres and 34 guntas owned by Mr. Y.G. Dwarakanath came to be assigned new Sy.No. 33/2;
(c) An extent of 6 acres and 8 guntas owned by Mr. Y.G. Ramkumar came to be assigned new Sy.No. 33/3;
(d) An extent of 4 acres owned by Mr. Y.G. Vijayakumar came to be assigned new Sy.No. 33/4;
(a) An extent of 20 acres and 01 guntas owned by Mr. Y.A. Subramanyam came to be assigned new Sy.No. 33/6;
.7. It is stated that claimant No. 11, his son by name Mr. Muniraju, 12, 13 and two others filed a suit in O.S.No. 645/2005, on 15.03.2005, against claimants 1 to 6 herein, Y.G. Dwarakanath and Y.G. Sreerama Setty as also one Smt. Achchamma on the file of the Hon'ble Rural Civil Judg (Sr.Dvn), Bengaluru seeking declaration that plaintiffs therein are the owners in possession of that suit schedule lands viz. 5 acres of 17 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 land in Sy.No. 33 of Ramasandra village. This suit came to be dismissed on 12.06.2014.
.8. It is stated that claimants 9 and 10 herein and two others filed a suit in O.S.No. 646/2005 on 15.03.2005, against claimants 1 to 6 herein, Y.G. Dwarakanath and Y.G. Sreerama Setty as also one Smt. Achchamma on the file of the Hon'ble Rural Civil Judg (Sr.Dvn), Bengaluru seeking declaration that plaintiffs therein are the owners in possession of that suit schedule lands viz. 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 33 of Ramasandra village and for a perpetual injunction.
.9. It is stated that claimant No. 8 herein and two others filed a suit in O.S.No. 647/2005 on 15.03.2005, against claimants 1 to 6 herein, Y.G. Dwarakanath and Y.G. Sreerama Setty as also one Smt. Achchamma on the file of the Hon'ble Rural Civil Judg (Sr.Dvn), Bengaluru seeking declaration that plaintiffs therein are the owners in possession of that suit schedule lands viz. 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 33 of Ramasandra village and for a perpetual injunction.
18
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .10. It is stated that two daughters and a son by name Smt. Munivenkatamma, Sri. Duggaiah and Smt. Siddalingamma, who are all children of claimant No. 14 herein filed a suit in O.S.No. 648/2005, on 15.03.2005, against claimants 1 to 6 herein, Y.G. Dwarakanath and Y.G. Sreerama Setty as also one Smt. Achchamma on the file of the Hon'ble Rural Civil Judg (Sr.Dvn), Bengaluru seeking declaration that plaintiffs therein are the owners in possession of that suit schedule lands viz. 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 33 of Ramasandra village and for perpetual injunction.
.11. It is stated that claimant No. 7 herein and another filed a suit in O.S.No. 649/2005, on 15.03.2005, against claimants 1 to 6 herein, Y.G. Dwarakanath and Y.G. Sreerama Setty as also one Smt. Achchamma on the file of the Hon'ble Rural Civil Judg (Sr.Dvn), Bengaluru seeking declaration that plaintiffs therein are the owners in possession of that suit schedule lands viz. 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 33 of Ramasandra village and for a perpetual injunction. 19
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .12. It is stated that the present rival claimant No. 18 herein who got himself impleaded in this L.A.C. case, filed an application seeking to be substituted in place of the original plaintiffs in the said suit - O.S.No. 646/2005, 647/2005, 648/2005 and 649/2005. The application came to be dismissed with costs as per order dated 09.08.2017. Thereafter, the said rival claimant No. 18 herein filed an application to review the said order dated 09.08.2017. This application also came to be dismissed as per Order dated 27.10.2018. Finally, this very suit came to be dismissed on 07.11.2018.
.13. It is stated that the orders of dismissal of the suit are not challenged in any further proceedings. Thus, these orders of dismissal have become final and binding on all the rival claimants herein and their legal successors. It is stated that the claimants 15 to 18 who have come on record in this proceedings after the reference made by Special Land Acquisition Officer, B.D.A. to this Court are based on the transactions which are all subsequent to the acquisition and the 20 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 reference herein. It is submitted that the claimants as they stood originally had no right to enter into any transaction after the notification acquisition and thus these transactions are non-est in the eye of law.
.14. Memo filed by claimant No. 4 to 7 adopting claim statement filed by claimant No. 3.
.15. The claimants 7 to 14 have filed claim statement stating that the claimants Chikkanagappa @ Chikka Lingaiah S/o Lingaiah and other claimant Hanumakka's husband and other claimants father are the absolute owners of Sy.No.33, measuring totally 25 acres of land situated at Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli. The said land was gifted by Yadalam Subbaiah Setty & sons to the Bhoodana Yagna committee on 01.07.1956 situated in Sy.No.31, 32, and 33 totaling to 25 acres of land. In turn, the Bhoodana Yagna Board has alloted each 5 acres of land on 14.01.1957 to 1) Eeraiah S/o Lingaiah 2) Chikkaningappa S/o Motaganahalli Lingaiah present claimant No.8
3)Poojappa S/o Ellaga 4)Chikkayellagapa S/o Mallappa 21 L.A.C. No. 153/2003
5) Chowdappa S/o Kempasiddiah. And possession was delivered to the grantee. The said gift and the allotment were made to the claimants and were registered by the Thasildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District on 02.04.1969, vide file case Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24. Out of these 3 Sy.Nos., survey No.33 is about 46 acres. All the allottees, cultivated this land abutting to each others land in the same Sy.No.33, all the 5 allottes have taken possession of the land totalling to 25 acres in Sy.No.33 and continued their possession and enjoyment. But the RTC was not regularized. Hence, Chikkaningappa @ Chikanagappa along with other legal heirs of the said allottes filed an application before Thasildar Bangaore South Taluk for regularization of Katha to their names in the RTC and other revenue register entries. The revenue litigation between them and claimants 1 to 6 have been reiterated.
.16. The Spl. Dy. Commissioner after detailed enquiry regarding the Bhoodana Yagna committee's Acts passed an order confirming the Tasildar's order and 22 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 dismissed the Revision petition filed by Y.G. Madhusudan and others. The compensation payable for these 25 acres of land in Sy.No.33 at Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk may be awarded to these claimants for 5 acres each.
.17. Claimant No. 7(a) has filed claim statement stating that originally the land bearing Sy.No. 31, 32 and 33 measuring 25 acres situated at Ramasandra village belongs to one Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and sons. It is stated that the said Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and sons has donated the aforesaid properties for Bhoodan Yagna by means of Danapatra dated 01.07.1956. It is stated that the Tahsildar Bengaluru South Taluka has passed the order in the name of Mysore Bhoodan Yagna Board endorse. It is stated that claimant's father and other 4 persons are deemed as Bhoodan Raiyats from 14.01.1957. Based on the said Bhoodan Yagna the father of the claimant No. 7(a) i.e., Lingaiah had become absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No. 33 measuring 5 acres situated at 23 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Ramasandra village. It is stated that during the life time of claimant No. 7(a) he was exercising his right over the property as absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The claimant No. 7(a) father died intestate leaving behind him, his wife and daughter to succeed to his estate. After the demise of claimant No. 7(a) father the claimant No. 7(a) mother Smt. Hanumakka had transferred the khatha in her name and also mutated her name in MR No. 30/2003- 04 dated 12.03.2003. Based on the revenue entries Smt. Hanumakka was exercising her right over the aforesaid property as absolute owner.
.18. It is stated that the claimant No. 7(a)'s mother Smt. Hanumakka died on 08.01.2010 and she died issue less, wherein the claimant No. 7(a) is the adopted daughter of late. Hanumakka and the said Hanumakka has been taking care of the claimant No. 7(a) since her childhood. After the demise of Hanumakka, the claimant No. 7(a) had succeeded to her estate and she has transferred all the revenue records 24 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 in her name and mutated her name in MR No. 13/2020-21 dated 01.12.2020. Hence, prayed to issue compensation amount in her favour.
.19. Claimant No. 7(a) has filed additional claim statement stating that the claimant No. 7(a) Manjula is none other than the elder brother Lakshmaiah of late. Lingaiah, as such, she is the adopted daughter and also legal heirs of late. Hanumakka and Lingaiah. The LRs claimant No. 7(a) to (e) are no way related to the family of Lingaiah of Smt. Hanumakka. It is stated that the alleged Will dated 21.01.1991 alleged to be executed by late. Lingaiah in-favour of father of claimant No. 7(b) to
(f) the land bearing Sy.No. 33 measuring 5 acres situated at Ramasandra village is not at all mentioned in the alleged Will, hence the question of LRs claimants 7(b) to (f) claiming right over the aforesaid property does not arise. It is stated that on perusing the alleged Will dated 21.01.1991 purported to be executed by Lingaiah no-where in the Will he has mentioned the relationship between said Anjinappa M.S. and not mentioned the 25 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 father's name of Anjinappa. It is stated that the LRs of claimants 7(b) to (f) have produced genealogical tree in the said document they have intentionally mentioned the mother's name as Hanumakka as daughter of Giriyamma. In some document, the said Hanumakka is the mother of Anjinappa M.S. and in some documents Hanumakka is the mother of Giriyamma.
.20. It is stated that the claimant No. 7(b) to (f) have instituted an appeal in RA No. 271/2022 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Taluka in-respect of land bearing Sy.No. 33 measuring 5 acres on the alleged Will, wherein the claimant No. 7(a) Manjula is one of the party to the said appeal and still not received any notice for her appearance and more over there is no stay in the said appeal. It is stated that the claimant No. 7(b) to (f) are not at all related to the family of claimant No. 7, hence, their participation in the above petition is not required. It is stated that the claimant No. 7(b) to (f) are already claimants in the above case in-respect of other property and after 26 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 claimant No.7(a) Manjula had filed LRs application in- respect of deceased claimant No.7 and having coming to know the same, in order to make a wrongful claim the claimant No. 7(b) to (f) are trying to come on record in order to knock off the compensation amount deposited in the name of deceased claimant No. 7. Hence, prayed to order for issue the compensation amount in her favour along with an alternative sites.
.21. Claimant No. 7(b) to 7(f) have filed claim statement stating that originally the land bearing Sy.No. 33 measuring 5 acres of Ramasandra village has been gifted by the Government in the name of Sri. Vinobha Bhave Bhoo Dana Yagna" in-favour of Hanumakka W/o Lingaiah @ Ningaiah. The grant of land through gift is made on 14.01.1957 and the same was published in Gazette notification dated 03.06.1967 and later on 02.04.1969 the Tahsildar has also confirmed the same under the Land Grant Rules. The same was ordered on 02.04.1969 in case No. 21, 22, 23 and 24 and in BYDC No. 1/69-70 by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru. The total 25 27 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 acres have been gifted in-favour of other 4 members i.e., Chikkalingappa, Poojappa, Chikkayalagappa and Chowdappa along with Hanumakka under the same grant based on their possession. Such being the facts after long time one Yadalam Subbaiah Shetty and his children who are the original owners of the said land have questioned the gift which have been made in- favour of 5 members as stated above in RRT-1 (Dispute):13/1999-2000 before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka which came to be disposed off on 14.02.2003 and as petitioner the said order the right, title and interest of the allottees have confirmed over their respective lands. It is stated that the original grantee Hanumakka has no issues and therefore, they have adopted his uncle's grandson by name Anjinappa M.S. S/o Somalingaiah and adopted son of Hanumakka is the evident of the registered Will dated 21.01.1991 registered on 30.01.1991 vide document bearing No. 310, Book-III, volume No. 129, at pages 57- 60 dated 30.01.1991 which clearly reveals that the 28 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 above said Anjinappa is the adopted son of Lingaiah and Hanumakka. So, the said Anjinappa is the legal heir of deceased Hanumakka.
.22. It is stated that the reason why the said property is not the subject matter of the said registered Will is, on the date of above registered Will the present acquired property was the subject matter in RRT-1 (Dispute):13/1999-2000 before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka which came to be disposed off on 14.02.2003 and it has reached its finality in the year 2003 and hence during pendency of the same the present acquired land was not mentioned in the above registered Will. It is stated that Lingaiah was allotted the land but during the proceedings before Tahsildar while passing of final orders he was not alive and hence, his wife name i.e., Hanumakka has been mentioned in the order dated 14.02.2003. It is therefore, the Will executed by one Lingaiah in-favour of Anjinappa M.S. as an adopted son will binding forever and which applies for all purposes. It is stated that Hanumakka died on 29 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 21.10.2010. During the life time of said Hanumakka was in the care and custody of claimant No. 7(b) to (f) to prove the same these claimants are producing several documents. It is stated that after demise of the said Hanumakka her adopted son i.e., Anjinappa was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the acquired land and the said Anjinappa also died on 16.03.2011 leaving behind the above claimants as his successors to succeed his estate. These claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Hanumakka, hence, they are entitled for all the statutory benefits provided under the Law including awarded amount. It is stated that in the mean time Smt. Manjula has come up with an LR application seeking permission to implead as legal heir of deceased Hanumakka. But she is a stranger and third party to the family of Hanumakka and she is no way concerned to the property.
.23. It is stated that Manjula has also made an attempt to effect the khatha in her name in-respect of acquired property recently by producing her transfer 30 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 certificate before the Assistant Commissioner claiming that she is the daughter of Hanumakka. She has given complaint before BEO and they have enquired about the same and has given report with documents that they have created and forged the said T.C. for the said purpose. Hence, her claim statement is liable to be rejected. The RTC Extract affected in her name based on the forged TC is now stayed in RA No. 271/2022 before the Assistant Commissioner and said MR No. 13/2020-21. It is stated that no document has been produced by her to show that she is the legal heir of deceased Hanumakka or she is the adopted daughter of the said Hanumakka. She failed to prove that she is the resident of Motaganahalli village and hence all the documents produced by her supporting her claim are forged one. Hence, prayed to release the award amount in-respect of 5 acres of land.
.24. LRs of claimant No. 8 have filed claim statement stating that one Chikkaningappa @ Chikkanagaiah @ Chikkalingaiah S/o Motaganahalli 31 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Lingaiah @ Lingaiah and other claimants viz. Hanumakka's husband and other fathers are the absolute owners of Sy.No. 33 measuring to an extent of 25 acres of land situated at Ramasandra village. It is stated that originally the said land was gifted by Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and sons to the Bhoodana Yagna committee on 01.07.1956 situated in Sy.No. 31, 32 and 33 totally measuring 25 acres of land. It is stated that in turn the Bhoodana Yagna Board has allotted 5 acres of land to 5 persons each. All the five allottees have taken possession of the said lands totally measuring 25 acres in Sy.No. 33 and continued their possession and enjoyment. The said Chikkanagaiah along with other legal heirs of the other allottees have filed an application before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka seeking regularization of the khatha to their respective names in the RTC Extract and other revenue register entries. The Tahsildar ascertained that the respective allottees are in possession of the property in question and accordingly in the year 1991 the RTC 32 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Extract have been changed in Sy.No. 33 to the names of the respective allottees. The revenue entries were also mutated in-favour of the said Chikka Ningappa vide MR No. 30/2002-03. It is stated that subsequently the land in question was acquired by the B.D.A. These claimants being the legal heirs of claimant No. 8 are entitled to claim compensation.
.25. LRs of claimant No. 10 have filed claim statement stating that the claimants Chikkangappa @ Chikka Lingaiah S/o Lingaiah and other claimants Hanumakka's husband and other father are the absolute owners of Sy.No. 33 measuring 25 acres of land situated at Ramasandra village. The said land was gifted by Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and sons to the Bhoodana Yagna Committee on 01.07.1956 situated in Sy.No. 31, 32 and 33 totally measuring to an extent of 25 acres of land. Out of these 3 survey numbers, Sy.No. 33 is about 46 acres. All the allottees, cultivated this land abutting to each others land in the same Sy.No. 33, all the 5 allottees have taken possession of 33 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 the land totally measuring 25 acres in Sy.No. 33 and continued their possession and enjoyment. But the RTC Extract was not regularization. Hence, Chikkaningappa along with other legal heirs of the said allottees filed an application before Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka for regularization of khatha to their names in the RTC Extract and other revenue register entries. It is stated that the Tahsildar stating that all are cultivating in Sy.No. 33, each 5 acres by abutting one to another. It is stated that in the year 1991, the RTC Extract have been changed in Sy.No. 33 to the names of allottees and due to the death of some allottees to their legal heirs. The revenue litigation between them and claimants 1 to 6 is reiterated.
.26. The Tahsildar registered the case as allottees (1) Dispute 3/99-2000 between Y.G. Madhusudan and others Vs. Hanumakka and other. It is stated that after detailed enquiry on 14.02.2001 passed the order in- favour of these claimants. The compensation payable for these 25 acres of land in Sy.No.33 at Ramasandra 34 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk may be awarded to the claimants 7 to 13 for 5 acres each.
.27. LRs of Claimant No.14 have filed claim statement stating that claimants Chowdappa and others are the absolute owners of the Sy.No. 33, measuring 25 guntas of land situated at Ramasandra village. The said land was gifted by Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and sons to the Bhoodana Yagna committee on 01.07.1956 situated in Sy.No. 31, 32 and 33 totalling to 25 acres of land. In turn bhoodana yagna board has allotted 5 acres each of land on 14.01.1957 to (1) Eeraiah; (2) Chikkaningappa; (3) Poojappa; (4) Chikkayellappa and Chowdappa and possession was delivered to the grantee. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner order was passed on 04.08.2003. Hence, the above claimants are the absolute owners with possession and enjoyment of 25 acres of land out of Sy.No. 33. It is stated that the grand father and grand mother of the present legal heirs are no more, leaving behind the present applicants as a Class-I heirs to succeed to the award amounts and 35 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 other benefits. It is stated that the respondent to pay award and other benefits to the LRs of claimant No.14.
.28. Claimants 19 and 20 have filed claim statement stating that to an extent of 12,000 sq. feet the said legal heirs of Smt. Alamelamma ( claimant No. 14) have executed the registered agreement of sale dated 26.06.2015. It is stated that under the provisions of incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of land rules, 1989 the owners i.e., Smt. Alamelamma (claimant No.
14) or her legal heirs are entitled to get incentive sites from B.D.A. to an extent of extent of 12000 sq. feet in Banashankari 6th stage or in Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Nagara layout, Bengaluru. It is stated that they prayed to allow the claim petition and to pass order that they are entitled under the provisions of incentive schemes for voluntary surrender of land rules, 1989 to Bengaluru East Taluka incentive sites from the B.D.A. to an extent of 120000 sq. feet in Banashanari 6 th stage or in Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Nagara layout. 36
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .29. Claimants 21 to 25 have filed claim statement stating that one Motaganahalli Lingaiah was a propositus of an undivided joint Hindu family governed by Hindu Mithakshara law and he had 6 children namely (1) Ningellamma; (2) Ningellappa; (3) Chikkanagappa @ Chikkalingaiah; (4) Alumelamma; (5) Yallappa and (6) Yallamma and they constitute an undivided joint Hindu Family. It is stated that the above said late. Lingaiah belongs to Motaganahalli village and later he migrated to Dananayakanahalli village long back and hence, he is used to be called as Motaganahalli Lingaiah after the death of the said Motaganahalli Lingaiah the second son Chikkangappa @ Chikkalingaiah being a kartha of the joint family was managing the Joint Hindu Family. As such, since the family of Motagahalli Lingaiah were land less persons the Government of Karnataka has gifted the land by the "Land Gift Committee" in the name of " Sri Vinobha Bhave Bhoo Dana Yagna" for an extent of 5 acres in Ramasandra village in Sy.No. 33 in-favour of 37 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Chikkangappa @ Chikkalingaiah who was the kartha of the joint family. It is stated that the grant of land through gift is made on 14.01.1957 and the same was published in Gazette notification dated 03.06.1967 and later on 02.04.1969 the Tahsildar has also confirmed the same under the Land Grant Rules. The same was ordered on 02.04.1969 in case No.21, 22, 23 and 24 and in BYDC No. 1/69-70 by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru. It is stated that the land which was gifted in-favour of Chikkanagappa @ Chikkalingaiah is a joint family property. It is stated that the applicants shall get 1/6th share in the schedule property and these claimants have right over the schedule property as co-owners. It is stated that these claimants are the legal representative of deceased Ningellappa who is the brother of original grantee Chikkalingappa and hence they are entitled for their share. It is stated that these claimants have also filed a suit for partition and separate possession as against the children of Chikkalingappa which is pending for consideration in 38 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 O.S.No. 624/2015 as against the LRs of original grantee before the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn) Bengaluru Rural Court, Bengaluru.
.30. Claimants 26 to 30 have filed claim statement stating that originally one Motaganahalli Lingaiah was a propositus of an undivided Joint Hindu Family governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law and he had 6 children and they are constitute an undivided joint Hindu family having several properties belonging to joint Hindu family. It is stated that late Lingaiah was originally belonging to Motaganahalli Village and later he has migrated to Dananayakanahalli Village long back and hence he is used to call as Motaganahalli Lingaiah. After the death of the said Motaganahalli Lingaiah the second son Chickanagappa @ Chickalingaiah being a Kartha of the Joint family has managing the family.
.31. It is stated that these claimants submit that such being the facts the though the land granted in the name Chickanagappa @ Chicklingaiah who is none other than of uncle of the these claimants and at the 39 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 time of grant there was no separation or partition among the family members and such it is joint family property and the original grantee shall get 1/6th Share in the schedule property and these claimants have right over the schedule property as co-owner.
.32. It is stated that such being the facts, the original grantee and his brothers are still in joint and constructive possession of the property and even as on today no partition has taken place between the members of the joint family and the father of these claimants being brother of late Chickanagappa @ Chicklingaiah who is the original grantee has entitle for his legitimate share over the schedule property as such these claimants are entitle to the award amount along with the statutory benefits under prescribed law. Hence these petition.
.33. It is well settled law that land granted or gifted to any member of the family by the Government benefit to the other members or whole of the family. Such being the facts after long time one Sri. Yadalam 40 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Subbaiah Shetty and his children who are original owners said land have questioned the gift which have been made in favour of 5 members as stated above in RRT-1 (Dispute):13/1999-2000 before Tasildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore which came to be disposed off on 14.02.2003 and as per the said order the right, title and interest of the allottees have been confirmed over their respective lands.
.34. It is stated that these claimants are the legal representative of deceased Yellappa who is the brother of original Grantee Chikkalingappa and hence they are entitle for their share, right, interest over the same.
.35. It is stated that claimant No.21 to 25 have also filed a suit for partition and separate possession as against the children of Chikkalingappa, which is pending for consideration in O.S N.624/2015 as against the LR's of original Grantee before 2 nd Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn) Bengaluru Rural Court at Bengaluru. Hence, prayed to release the award amount in-respect of 5 acres of land.
41
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .36. In order to prove their case, Varalakshmi is examined as PW.1. Claimant No. 23 Smt. Sakamma is examined as PW.2. Claimant No. 29 Smt. Gowramma is examined as PW.3. Claimant No. 3 Y.G. Vijayakumar is examined as PW.4. Claimant No. 20 Venkatesh Kamath is examined as PW.5. Claimant No. 8(c) Siddappa is examined as PW.6. LR No.7(a) Manjula of deceased claimant No. 7 is examined as PW.7. One Nagahanumaiah M.A. is examined as PW.8. One Smt. M. Kamaladevi is examined as PW.9. The documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to 112(a).
.37. Heard the arguments on main. Written arguments held by claimants 1 to 6, claimant No. 7(a and claimant No. 7(b) to (f.) .38. The following points that would arise for my consideration are:
1) Which of the claimants are entitled for compensation amount?
2) What Order or Award?42
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .39. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 : As per discussion Point No.2 :As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .40. POINT No.1: The claim statements and evidence of claimants discloses that one Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and his sons a partnership firm had donated the properties in Sy.No. 33 measuring to an extent of 25 acres of Ramasandra village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka to the Bhoodan Committee on 01.07.1956. Consequently 25 acres in Sy.No.31, 32 and 33 was allotted to Lingaiah, Chikkanagappa, Poojappa, Chikka Yeligappa @ Yellappa and Chowdappa by the committee. Ex.P.46 is the said order. The names of claimants 1 to 6 were entered in the RTC during 1974 based on partition. After long lapse of time the allottees moved RRT proceedings in the year 1990 before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar had allotted 25 acres of land in Sy.No. 33 in-favour of 5 persons i.e., (1) Eraiah; (2) 43 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Chikkanagappa; (3) Poojappa; (4) Chikkayelagappa and (5) Chowdappa and had allotted 5 acres each as per order dated 08.11.1991 in RRT(1) 283/1990-91. The legal heirs of M/s. Yadalam Subbaiah Setty herein after called as appellants had challenged before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.115/1991 and the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, they have filed W.P. No. 33954/1993 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had quashed the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.03.1993 and had remanded the matter back for fresh enquiry. The appellants ( present claimants 1 to 6) have stated that the Tahsildar without enquiry had again mutated 5 acres each in Sy.No. 33 in-favour of legal heirs of original allottees. The order dated 14.02.2003 was challenged in Appeal in R.A. No. 173/2002-03 before the Assistant Commissioner and the appeal was dismissed. Ex.P.60 is the said order.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2003, the claimants filed Revision Petition No. 15/2003-04 before 44 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner had dismissed the petition on 04.08.2003. Ex.P.61 is the said order. The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had noted that out of 44 acres 9 guntas available in Sy.No. 33, to an extent of 25 acres stands disposed of in-favour of allottees. Out of remaining 19 acres 9 guntas to an extent of 4 acres is alienated in- favour of Achamma. For the balance 15 acres 9 guntas available in Sy.No. 33, the said extent would continue in the names of legal heirs of Yadalam Subbaiah Setty.
.41. The claimant No. 3 Y.G. Vijayakumar is examined as PW.4. He has deposed on behalf of claimant No. 1, 2 and 4. The claimants 1, 2 and 4 are his brothers. The claimant No. 6 is his cousin. The claimant No. 5 is his close relative. PW.4 has stated that though the lands were donated, they had retained possession of the entire extent of Sy.No. 33 in Ramasandra village. PW.4 has stated that the Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and sons the partnership firm was dissolved. The lands owned and vested with the firm 45 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 was partitioned amongst its partners vide a partition deed dated 07.11.1974 / 12.12.1974 including Sy.No. 33 since possession was continued to be retained by the firm thereby allotting various extents to the partners amongst other lands. PW.4 has stated that as per partition, to an extent of 6 acres 8 guntas, to an extent of 3 acres 10 guntas, to an extent of 4 acres, to an extent of 3 acres 36 guntas, to an extent of 20 acres 1 guntas and to an extent of 1 acre 34 guntas in Sy.No. 33 were allotted along with possession to the share of claimants 1 to 6 respectively. PW.4 has stated that the claimants 1 to 6 are in possession and enjoyment of the lands and the revenue records have been changed to their names. The Revenue Authorities based on the said partition and the respective parties being in possession and enjoyment of their lands, have mutated the revenue entries in-favour of claimants 1 to 6, as per records of rights entry No. 895. These claimants names were also recorded in the record of rights and Index of lands for the year 1974. The RTC Extract in Sy.No. 33 46 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 for the year 1974 onwards clearly indicates the names of claimants. They have also paid taxes with respect to the shares allotted to them. They have dug an open well and bore-well with electric connection in the lands in Sy.No. 33. They have planted several fruits like Coconut, Mango trees, which are more than 46 years and were enjoying the yield and income derived from the said lands without obstruction since the year 1974. The lands in Sy.No. 33 was fenced and developed incurring heavy expenses and cost.
.42. PW.4 has stated that the lands in Sy.No. 33 came to be phoded in the year 1984 based on the said partition deed. After such phoding sub survey No. 33/1, 33/2, 33/3, 33/4, 33/5 and 33/6 came to be allotted relating to the lands of the claimants 1 to 6. However, to substantiate the same, these claimants have not produced the documents.
.43. PW.4 has stated that the lands which were in possession came to be acquired by B.D.A. for formation of a residential layout. PW.4 has stated about the 47 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 revenue litigation between them and original allottees. From Ex.P.46 order of the Tahsildar, it is clear that lands were distributed at the rate of 5 acres each on 14.01.1957 to (1) Sarvasri Eraiah; (2) Chikkaningappa S/o Motanaikanahalli Ninga; (3) Poojappa; (4) Chikkayellappa and (5) Chowdappa. The above persons are deemed as Bhoodan Raiyats from 14.01.1957. The fact of donation is vouchsafed by the Prapti Patra.
.44. Ex.P.61 is the order of Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No. 174/2002-03. The order discloses that the order confirming the Bhoodan Yagna Danapatra shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, in such manner as may be prescribed and it shall then take effect from the date of the order as if it were a deed of gift. It is stated that in pursuance, the provisions of Section 15(5) provides that there had been any such superseding of Danapatra, the donation of the land in-respect of which the Bhoodan Yagna Danapatra is superseded shall be cancelled and the right, title and interest of any person in such land 48 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 before the date of the Danapatra shall not be affected in any manner. It is stated that appellants have lost their right, title and interest over the land in question and that the appellants having no manner of right, title and interest over the land, which was transferred or surrendered under the danapatra cannot have any right to get the lands in question partitioned among themselves, particularly when the appellants' right, title and interest over the land in question are extinguished. It is stated that at any point of time, the said regularization of grant of lands in-favour of the said beneficiaries / grantees was not cancelled by the competent Revenue Officer. In such an event, when the appellants have not invoked the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act, their claim over the land in question is automatically abrogated much less the original grant / regularization of the lands made in-favour of donees / grantees is not cancelled by the competent authority / Revenue officer and that therefore, any partition of the said lands effected among the appellants as successors 49 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 in interest of their predecessors in title under the alleged partition deed dated 30.10.1974 cannot be given effect to particularly when they have lost their right, title and interest as well as possession of the lands. The Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by these claimants 1 to 5 to an extent of 25 acres in Sy.No. 33 of Ramasandra village and upheld the order passed by the Tahsildar.
.45. The claimants have challenged the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner in Rev. petition No. 15/2003-04 before the Deputy Commissioner and it was dismissed. Against the order of Deputy Commissioner the applicants filed W.P. No. 42212/2003. PW.4 has stated that all the parties to the W.P. had decided to end the dispute and entered into a compromise. They have filed a joint memo, clearly mentioning the amounts of compensation deposited by B.D.A. and the apportionment and distribution to be made amongst themselves before the L.A.C. Court. The Hon'ble High Court had accepted the joint memo by 50 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 order dated 09.06.2004. Subsequently, on 22.06.2004 the Hon'ble High Court had recalled the order dated 09.06.2004 and had directed the parties to file necessary application before this Court reporting settlement of the dispute and distribution of amounts reported in the joint memo including the apportionment of the award amount. PW.4 has stated that the joint memo was not set aside by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court permitted the parties to file joint memo reporting settlement of the dispute. PW.4 has stated that the said joint memo having been accepted by the respective parties is binding on all the claimants and the same is not challenged or set aside till date.
.46. Ex.P.17 is the order in W.P. No. 42212/2003. From the order, at para No. 11 it is seen that:
"Grievance of the petitioners cannot be entertained on the joint memo filed herein since the matter has to be enquired into by the Civil Court and to pass necessary orders".51
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .47. However, the Hon'ble High Court had observed that the compromise entered into by the petitioners and respondents would be considered by the Civil Court in so far as the disbursement of the amount and to pass necessary orders after hearing the parties in-respect of the application that would be filed since according to the petitioners they have said to have entered into compromise. The Hon'ble Court has recalled the order passed on 09.06.2004 in-respect of joint memo.
.48. The counsel for the petitioners had submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with a liberty to approach the Civil Court for filing necessary application. The writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to approach Civil Court as sought for and the Civil Court to consider the application of the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents and pass suitable orders.
52
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .49. Before this Court, the claimants have not filed the compromise petition. As the claimants have withdrawn the writ petition, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has attained finality.
.50. The claimants have produced Ex.P.18 to 32 RTC Extracts. These RTCs are from 1969 to 1993 in the names of claimants 1 to 6. As the entries in the RTC have been challenged by the grantees. The appeal filed by claimants 1 to 6 in Rev. petition No. 15/2003-04 before the Deputy Commissioner have been dismissed; the claimants 1 to 5 cannot claim to be in possession of 25 acres granted to the allottees based on the above RTCs.
.51. Ex.P.36 to 39 are the orders on IAs under Order 22 rule 10 of CPC in O.S.No. 646/2005, 647/2005, 648/2005 and 649/2005. From the said orders it is seen that the impleading application was filed by one Jagadish S/o Mallappa and the said applications came to be dismissed. The said Jagagish is 53 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 claimant No. 18 in this case, but however he has not chosen to lead any evidence.
.52. From the above discussion it is clear that claimants 1 to 6 are entitled for 15 acres 9 guntas in Sy.No. 33 and the 5 grantees are entitled for 5 acres each in Sy.No. 33.
.53. The claimant No. 14(b) Varalakshmi has been examined as PW.1. She has stated that she is giving evidence on behalf of other claimants i.e., claimant No. 14(a), (c) to (g). PW.1 has stated that they are the legal heirs of late. Chowdappa and Alumelamma @ Alumelu who are her close relatives. The land was gifted by Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and sons to the Bhoodana Yagna Committee on 01.07.1956 and her grand parents got 5 acres of land and the allotment was registered by Tahsildar on 02.04.1969 vide case file No. 21, 22, 23 and 24. The claimants have not produced said documents. Ex.P.46 is available in the record. From Ex.P.46, it is seen that Chowdappa S/o Kempa Siddaiah is one of the grantee who has been granted 5 54 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 acres of land. PW.1 has reiterated the revenue litigation filed by claimants 1 to 5. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by claimants 1 to 5 in No. 15/2000-04. It is stated that in view of dismissal all claimants are the absolute owners in possession of 25 acres of land in Sy.No. 33. Her grand father and grand mother had left behind them as Class-I heirs to succeed to the award amount in-respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 33.
.54. In support of the said contention, they have produced death certificate of Halamelamma as per Ex.P.1. Her husband name is shown as Chowdaiah. As per the document, she has expired on 25.11.2003. Ex.P.2 is the death certificate of Chowdaiah, which discloses that he is the son of Kempa Siddaiah and his date of death is mentioned as 15.06.1985 and the same has been registered on 25.06.1985. Ex.P.3 is the death certificate of Dugalaiah and his father name is shown as Chowdaiah. He has expired as 21.07.2005. Ex.P.4 is the death certificate of Narasimhamurthy. He is the son 55 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 of Venkateshappa and Siddalingamma and his date of death is 23.06.2009. Ex.P.5 is the death certificate of Siddalingamma. Ex.P.6 is the Genealogical tree pertaining to the family of Chowdappa. During cross- examination PW.1 denies that she has not produced any document to show that Alumelamma was granted land. PW.1 has not produced the grant order. From Ex.P.46, order of Assistant Commissioner Ex.P.60 and order of Deputy Commissioner Ex.P.61 it is seen that Chowdappa S/o Kempa Siddaiah has been granted 5 acres of land. The claimants 14(a) to (g) are the legal heirs of Chowdappa and as such they are entitled for compensation in-respect of 5 acres of land.
.55. The claimant No. 20 Venkatesh Kamath has been examined as PW.5. He has stated that he is swearing the affidavit on behalf of claimant No. 19 also. He has stated that subsequent to the death of Chowdappa, his wife Alumelamma claimant No. 14 had died and thereafter her legal heirs had executed registered agreement of sale dated 26.06.2015; that 56 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 under the provisions of Incentive Scheme for voluntarily surrender of land rules, the owner Alumelamma @ Alumelu or her legal heirs are entitled to get incentive sites from the B.D.A. to an extent of 12,000 sq. feet in Banashankari 6 th stage. In view of the agreement, he has sought for the relief. Ex.P.45 is the agreement of sale. From the said document, it is seen that LRs of claimant No. 14 have received a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/-. In the said agreement, it is stated that purchasers may either in their name or in the name of their nominee may get the absolute sale deed in-respect of lands proposed to be allotted by B.D.A. and vendors shall not object for the same. The purchaser have agreed to pay balance amount to vendors complied only after allotment of land under Incentive Scheme by the B.D.A. in the layout mentioned above. The agreement is not in-respect of compensation to be received by the claimants. During cross-examination PW.5 admits that he has not made any claim in-respect of compensation to be paid to the share of Chikka Lingaiah and that 57 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 claim is made only in-respect of compensation to be paid in-respect of Alumelamma @ Alumelu and her legal heirs. These claimants are seeking for allotment of land under incentive scheme. The prayer sought is beyond scope of the reference and so their claim is rejected.
.56. The claimant No. 8(c) Siddappa is examined as PW.6. He is swearing to an affidavit on his behalf as well as on behalf of other LRs of deceased claimant No.
8. He has stated that one Chikkaningappa @ Chikkanagaiah @ Chikka Lingaiah S/o Motaganahalli Lingaiah was allotted 5 acres of land along with others by Bhoodana Yagna Board on 14.01.1957, since then they have been in possession of the property. Subsequent to the gift, allotment were made to the claimants and the same is registered by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka on 02.04.1969 vide case No. 21, 22, 23 and 24. Ex.P.46 is the said order. He has stated that all the allottees were cultivating the lands abutting each others land in Sy.No. 33. PW.6 has stated that although the said lands were gifted/ allotted in- 58
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 favour of respective allottees but the RTC Extract was not regularized. So, Chikkanagaiah @ Chikkalingappa along with other legal heirs of other allottees have filed an application before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka seeking regularization of the khatha to their respective names in the RTC Extract and other revenue register entries. He has stated that the revenue proceedings which have taken place between him and legal heirs of Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and sons. He has stated that after remand, in pursuance to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the Tahsildar had conducted detailed enquiry and in the year 1991 the RTC Extract have been changed in Sy.No. 33 to the names of the respective allottees and due to the death of some of the allottees, their legal heirs have already come on record. The revenue entries were also mutated in-favour of Chikka Ningappa @ Chikka Nagaiah vide MR No. 30/2002-03.
.57. To corroborate his contention, he has produced RTC Extracts as per Ex.P.47 (7 in numbers). 59
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 These documents are standing in the names of claimants 1 to 6. Ex.P.50 is the mutation, which discloses that in pursuance to the order of Tahsildar, names of allottees have been mutated. Ex.P.48 is the RTC Extract for the year 2015-16. The name of Chikka Ningappa has been entered to an extent of 5 acres in pursuance to the MR No. 30/2002-03. Ex.P.51 is the Genealogical tree pertaining to the family of Chikka Ningappa. Ex.P.52 is the death certificate of Chikka Lingaiah, which discloses that he died on 05.10.2005. Ex.P.53 is the death certificate of Munivenkatamma W/o Chikka Lingaiah, which discloses that she died on 29.07.2014. Ex.P.54 is the death certificate of Ramaiah, which discloses that he died on 27.09.2014. Ex.P.55 is the death certificate of Manjunatha, which discloses that he died on 27.10.2015. He is the son of Muniyappa. The LRs of Chikka Lingaiah are all brought on record. Ex.P.56 is the Encumbrance certificate in- respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 33. Ex.P.57 discloses that there is no application pending under 60 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Section 79(a) and (b) of the Lands Reforms Act in- respect of Sy.No. 33. Ex.P.58 discloses that there is no pendency of proceedings under PTCL Act in-respect of Sy.No. 33. Ex.P.59 is the award notice issued to Chikka Nagappa.
.58. During cross-examination PW.6 admits that claimants 21 to 25 are the sons of Yallappa who is elder brother of Chikka Lingappa. He admits that Yallappa is younger brother of Chikka Ningappa. The claimants 26 to 30 are his children. He denied the suggestion that in the year 1957 his father Chikka Lingaiah, Yallappa were also residing together and has denied that he has not produced any documents to show that his father was residing separately. He admits that there has been no partition of the joint family properties of his grand father. PW.6 has stated that the acquired property is not the joint family property. PW.6 admits that there is no partition among his brothers. He denied the suggestion that during life time of Ningayallappa O.S.No. 624/2015 has been filed.
61
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .59. The claimant No. 23 Sakamma has been examined as PW.2. She has stated that she is the daughter of Ningellappa. She has stated that she is deposing on behalf of claimants 21 to 25. Her evidence discloses that one Motaganahalli Lingaiah was the propositus of an undivided joint Hindu Family. He had 6 children i.e., (1) Ningellamma (2) Ningellappa (father of claimants 21 to 23, 25); (3) Chikkanagapp @ Chikkalingaiah (original grantee); (4) Alumelamma @ Alumelu ; (5) Yallappa and (6) Yallamma. She has stated that Lingaiah originally belong to Motaganahalli village and later on he had migrated to Dananayakanahalli village. After the death of Motaganahalli Lingaiah his second son Chikka Nagappa was the kartha of the joint family and managing the joint family; that family of Motaganahalli Lingaiah were land less persons the Government of Karnataka has gifted the land in the name of Sri. Vinobha Bhave Bhoo Dana Yagna to an extent of 5 acres in-respect of Chikkanagappa who was kartha of the joint family. She 62 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 has stated that Chikka Nagappa is none other than her uncle and at the time of grant, there was no separation or partition among the family members and as such, it is the joint family property. The original grantee and these claimants are members of the joint family and they are entitled to get 1/6th share in the schedule property.
.60. In support of her contention, she has produced Genealogical tree as per Ex.P.8 pertaining to family of Motaganahalli Lingaiah. It is an affidavit sworn before the notary and has not been obtained from the Revenue Department. Ex.P.10 to 13 are the RTC Extracts which discloses that the Chikka Lingaiah is owner in-respect of 5 acres of land. Ex.P.14 is the mutation made in the name of Chikka Lingaiah and others on 14.02.2003 in pursuance to the order in RRT(1) Dispute 13/99-2000. Ex.P.15 is the death certificate of Ningellappa, which discloses that he died on 26.04.2017 and his father name is Ningappa. 63
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .61. During cross-examination PW.2 has stated that she has produced documents to show that Lingaiah has got property and has denied the suggestion that no such document has been produced. The claimant has not produced any grant order. However from Ex.P.46 it is clear that Lingaiah has also been granted 5 acres of land. She has denied the suggestion that claimants 1 to 5 are in possession of the land. PW.2 is not in a position to say the properties included in O.S.No. 624/2015. For the reasons best known to her, she has not produced the plaint in O.S.No. 624/2015.
.62. The claimant No. 29 Gowramma is examined as PW.3. She has given her evidence on behalf of claimants 26 to 30. She has stated that Yallappa is brother of Chikka Nagappa @ Chikkalingaiah. Her evidence is similar to the evidence of PW.2 and the documents are also the same. She has sought for 1/6th share in the acquired land. Ex.P.16 is the death certificate of Yallappa, which discloses that he 64 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 died on 09.05.2001. During the cross-examination she pleads ignorance with regard to W.P. No. 42212/2003 filed by the claimants 1 to 5. She has denied that claimants 1 to 5 were in possession of the land. She pleads ignorance with regard to details of the property mentioned in O.S.No. 624/2015.
.63. From the evidence of PW.2 and 3, it is seen that they are claiming 5 acres granted to Chikkanagappa @ Chikkalingaiah as joint family property. When in a suit for partition a party claims that any particular item of the property is joint family property the burden of proving that it is so rests on the party asserting it. The same principles applies here also. The burden is upon PW.2 and 3 to show that the property granted to Chikkanagappa was joint family property. They have contended that Chikkanagappa @ Chikkalingaiah was kartha of the family. To substantiate the same no document is produced. Except oral evidence they have not placed materials that Chikkanagappa is not the elder son of Motaganahalli 65 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Lingaiah. Motaganahalli Lingaiah elder son is Ningellappa (father of claimants 21 to 25). If there is a joint family normally eldest son will be the kartha. Chikkanagappa @ Chikkalingaiah is the 2 nd son. There is no explanation as to why he was made kartha. In the absence of cogent evidence it cannot be said that Chikkanagappa @ Chikkalingiah was the kartha of the family. The claimants 21 to 30 have failed to prove the existence of joint family bydocumentary evidence.
.64. The counsel for the claimants 21 to 30 have relied upon the decisions reported in:
(1) (2015)1 SCC 417 (2) LAWS (KAR) 1998-3-7 (3) ILR 2009 KAR 1867 (4) (2003)3 SCC 552 In all these decisions it has been held that possession of Co-heir is in law treated as possession of all co-heirs. In all the above cases the finding was in-
respect of Inam lands. Occupancy rights will be granted to tenant if he was cultivating the land under Inams 66 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Abolition Act 1955. In the present case, the land granted is not Inam land. So, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
.65. One Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and his sons had gifted 25 acres to the Bhoodhana Committee on 01.07.1956. As already stated 5 acres of land was granted by Bhoodana Board to Chikkanagappa @ Chikka Lingappa.
.66. In Mullas 17 th Edition, Section 230 page 31, it is stated that:
"Government grant- property granted by government to a member of joint family is separate property of donee unless it appears from the grant that it is intended for the benefit of the family"
.67. It is not the case of the claimants 21 to 30 that their father was cultivating the land and the said land was granted. On the other hand, the record discloses that for landless people land was granted. The land has been granted to Chikkangappa @ Chikkalingaiah. It is his self acquired property. The 67 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 LRs of claimant No. 8 Chikkanagappa are only entitled for compensation amount. The claimants 21 to 30 are not entitled for compensation amount.
.68. The claimant No. 7(a) Manjula has been examined as PW.7. She has stated that Lingaiah was granted 5 acres of land along with others by Bhoodan Yagna Board on 14.01.1957. Based on the said grant her adopted father i.e. Lingaiah had become the absolute owner of the land in Sy.No. 33 measuring 5 acres of Ramasandra village. She has stated that during his life time, her adoptive father was exercising his right over the property and he died intestate leaving behind him, his wife Smt. Hanumakka and herself to succeed to his estate. After the death of adoptive father Smt. Hanumakka has transferred the khatha in her name and also mutated in MR No. 30/2003-04. Ex.P.67 is the RTC Extract in the name of Hanumakka. Ex.P.68 and 69 are the mutation made in the name of Hanumakka in pursuance to the order in RRT (1) DIS 13/99-00. She has stated that her mother Hanumakka 68 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 died issue less on 08.01.2010. She is the adopted daughter of late. Hanumakka and the said Hanumakka had taken care of her since her childhood.
.69. After the death of Hanumakka PW.7 has stated that she had succeeded to her estate and got transferred all the revenue records in her name. Ex.P.73 is the RTC Extract for the year 2020-21. As per the said document, name of PW.7(a) Manjula has been entered to an extent of 5 acres on the basis of Pouti. Ex.P.74 is the mutation extract dated 15.09.2020. PW.7 admits during cross-examination that mutation extract has been challenged by claimants 7(b) to (f) in RA No. 271/2022 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Taluka.
.70. Ex.P.92 is the acknowledgment receipt which discloses that the order passed by the Tahsildar in MRH-13/2020-21 has been challenged in RA (A) 271/2022 and the stay has been granted with regard to the said order. Ex.P.94 is the RTC Extract, wherein name of Manjula (PW.7) has been entered to an extent 69 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 of 5 acres and in Col. No. 11 it has been mentioned as Court stay.
.71. PW.7 has stated that she is the only daughter of Lakshmaiah and Thimmakka and Lingaiah is the elder brother of Lakshmaiah. She has stated that she is the adopted daughter and legal heir of Hanumakka. The claimant No.7(b) to (f) are no way related to the family of Lingaiah and Hanumakka. To corroborate her contention, she has produced transfer certificate as per Ex.P.63. From Ex.P.63, it is seen that father name is mentioned as Lakshmaiah. Name of adoptive father Lingaiah has not been mentioned. Ex.P.64 is the Aadhar card of PW.7 and in the said document, she is referred as wife of Govindaraju. Ex.P.76 is the family Genealogical tree. In the said document, it is stated that Manjula is daughter of Lakshmaiah and Thimmakka. In the said document, there is no reference that she is adopted daughter of Lingaiah and Hanumakka. On the other hand, her natural parents have been mentioned. She pleads ignorance when it is 70 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 suggested in Ex.P.76, it is not mentioned that Lakshmaiah has younger brother by name Lingaiah and his wife is Hanumakka.
.72. During cross-examination she admits that as per Ex.P.63 transfer certificate she has studied one year 8th standard at Bharatamata Vidhya Mandira, Hanumanthanagara, Bengaluru. It is elicited that she has studied 1st standard to 7th standard at Chowdeshwari Vidhya Samste, Katriguppe. She admits that in Ex.P.63 transfer certificate her mother name has not been mentioned. It is elicited that to prepare Aadhar card she has furnished voter ID card. She admits that she has not produced the ID card. Lingaiah is resident of Ramasandra and he is her junior uncle. She admits that as per the Aadhar card she is shown to be resident of Ukkadagrama and that she has not produced any documents to show that she was resident of Ramasandra village. To the question as to when she has taken in adoption by Lingaiah and Hanumakka. She has stated that she was brought up in their house 71 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 and as her father was working as coolie work, she had accompanied him to Katriguppe. She admits that she has not produced any documents to show that Lingaiah and Hanumakka were residing in Ramasandra village. It is elicited that Hanumakka has got a sister and has no brothers. PW.7 has stated that she got married in the year 1995 and she is residing with her husband at Ukkadagrama. Magadi Taluk. It is elicited that she is not having any photos with Hanumakka taken at the time of her marriage; that she has not produced any documents to show that she was residing with Lingaiah and Hanumakka from her birth till her marriage. She pleads ignorance with regard to the properties held by Lingaiah husband of Hanumakka. She admits that she is not having any original document as per Ex.P.70.
.73. She admits that she has not produced any photographs along with Lingaiah and Hanumakka for having attended any function. When it is suggested that her mother has no difficult to give evidence before court with regard to the fact that she was given in 72 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 adoption; she has stated that her mother is aged and she is not in a position to move around. She has stated that as Hanumakka has attained aged, she resided in her husband's house since 5 years. She admits that she has not produced any documents to show that Hanumakka had resided with her; that she has not produced any documents to show that Lingaiah and Hanumakka had taken her in adoption or she is foster daughter. She admits that except Ex.P-76, there is no document to show that Lingaiah had brother by name Lakshmaiah.
.74. The above evidence discloses that there is no document to show that PW.7 had been taken in adoption by Lingaiah and Hanumakka. Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, a Valid adoption (1) the person adopting must have the right to take and be lawfully capable of taking a son or daughter in adoption; (2) the person giving in adoption must be lawfully capable of doing so; (3) the person adopted must be lawfully capable of being taken in adoption; (4) 73 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 the conditions relating to adoption including actual giving and taking of a child with the intention of transferring the child from the family of its birth must be complied with (s.11). Except the oral statement of PW.7 that she is adopted daughter, she has not placed any material to show that there has been actual giving and taking in adoption. Only on the self serving statement without any documents I am of the view that PW.7 has failed to prove valid adoption. So, she cannot be considered to be legal heir of Lingaiah and Hanumakka. As PW.7 has failed to prove that she is the adopted daughter of Lingaiah and Hanumakka, her evidence that LRs PW.7(b) to (f) are not the legal heirs of Lingaiah and Hanumakka does not survive for consideration.
.75. The claimant No. 7(f) Nagahanumaiah has been examined as PW.8. He has stated that he is authorized to depose on behalf of LRs of deceased Anjinappa M.S. His evidence discloses that Lingaiah was granted 5 acres of land by the Land Gift Committee 74 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 in the name of Sri. Vinobha Bhave Bhoo Dana Yagna. Grantee Hanumakka and Lingaiah had no issues and so, they have adopted his uncle's grand son by name Anjinappa M.S., who was resident of Motaganahalli village. It is evident that the registered Will dated 21.01.1991 was executed by Lingaiah. Ex.P.80 is th said registered Will. From the said document, it is seen that Lingaiah has stated that:
"ನಮಮಗಳ ಮರಣಣನನತರ
ಅನನಕಣಕನತವಣಗಬಣರದದನದದ ನಮಮಗಳ ಪಕಪತಪಣತಕರಗದ
ಸದಪರಲದನಬ ಉದದದಪಶದನದ ಈವಲಯಣ ಮರಣಶಣಸನವನದನ ಬರದಸಟಟರದತದತಪವದ ಸದರ ನಮಮಗಳ ಮರಣಣ ನನತರ ನಮಮಗಳ ದತದತ ಪಪತಕನಣದ ಎನ ಎಸ ಅನಜನಪಪ ಸದಮಣರದ 40 ವಷರ ಇವನದ ಷಡಡನಲ ನಲಲ ನಮಡದದ ಕನಡ ಸಸತತನದನ ತನನ ಸಣಸಧಪನಹದಡನದತಕಕದದದ. ಸದರ ಅನಜನಪಪ ನಮಮ ಬಳಯಲಲಯಪ ಇದದದ ನಮಮಗಳ ಲಣಲನದ ಪಪಷಣದ ಆರದಡಪಗನವನದನ ಚದನಣನಗ ನದಡಪಡಕದಡಳಳತತದದದ ನಮಮಗಳ ಪಕಪತಗದ ಅರರನಣಗರದತಣತನದ. ಇವನ ಮಪಲನ ಪಕಪತವಶಣಸಸದನದ ಇವನದ ನಮಮಗಳ ಯಪಗಕದಪಮವನದನ ಚದನಣನಗ ನದಡಪಡಕದಡಳಳಳತತರದವಪದರನದ ಷಡಡನಲ ನಲಲ ನಮಡದದ ಕನಡ ಸಸತದತಗಳನದನ ಈವಲಯಣ ಮರಣಶಣಸನ ಪತಕದ ಮಡಲಕ ನಮಮಗಳ ಮರಣಣ ನನತರ ಎನ ಎಸ ಅನಜನಪಪ ನವರಗದ ಸದಪರತಕಕದದನದದ ನಮಮಗಳ ಖದದದದ ಮನದಡಪ ರಣಜಯನದಲಡ ಆತಮಸನತದಡಪಷದನದಲಡ ಒಪಪ ಈ ವಲಬರದಸಟಟರದತದತಪವದ " 75
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 .76. PW.8 has stated that the acquired land is not the subject matter of the registered Will. As on the date of registered Will, the acquired property was subject matter in RRT (1) DIS 13/99-2000 before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka which came to be disposed off on 14.02.2003 and so, the acquired land could not be mentioned in the above registered Will. The said Will reveals that Anjinappa M.S. is adopted son of Lingaiah and Hanumakka. It is contended that the said Anjinappa is the legal heir of deceased Lingaiah and Hanumakka; that the Will has not been challenged either by Smt. Manjula or by any one till today before the Court of law and properties involved in the said Will executed by Lingaiah were transferred in the name of Anjinappa M.S. and later on to the name of his wife Giriyamma i.e., claimant No. 7(b).
.77. PW.8 has stated that Hanumakka died on 21.10.2010. Ex.P.81 is the death certificate of Hanumakka. Her place of death is mentioned as Motaganahalli. It is stated that during life time of 76 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Hanumakka, she was in the care and custody of claimant No. 7(b) to (f) to prove the same, they have produced several documents. To corroborate the said contention, PW.8 has produced voter ID card of Anjinappa M.S. as per Ex.P.82. In the said document, father name is mentioned as Somalingaiah and the age as on 01.01.1994 is mentioned as 47. Anjinappa has not been referred as adopted son of Lingaiah. His address is shown as 211, Motaganahalli. Ex.P.83 is the voter ID card of Hanumakka W/o Lingaiah. Her address is shown as House No. 20, Dananayakanahalli. Ex.P.84 is the death certificate of Anjinappa, which discloses that he died on 16.03.2011 in Motaganahalli and his mother name is mentioned as Kalamma and father name is mentioned as Somalingaiah. In this document also his adoptive parents names have not been mentioned. Ex.P.85 to 89 are the Aadhar cards of claimants 7(b) to (f). Ex.P.90 is the Genealogical tree of Anjinappa M.S. In the Genealogical tree given by Revenue Department adoptive father name of Anjinappa 77 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 M.S. is not mentioned as Lingaiah. PW.8 has produced Genealogical tree as per Ex.P.91, in which propositor name is mentioned as Channaiah. From the said document, it is seen that Channaiah had 4 children namely (1) Eraiah; (2) Hanumanthaiah; (3) Hanumaiah and (4) Kunnaiah. Eraiah had a son by name Lingaiah (grantee) and the said Lingaiah had a wife by name Hanumakka. From the document, it is seen that Somalingaiah is his junior uncle's of Lingaiah. Anjinappa M.S. is the son of Somalingaiah.
.78. Ex.P.95 and 96 are the award notice issued to Hanumakka. Ex.P.97 is the death certificate which discloses that Ningaiah expired on 23.07.1991 at Dananayakanahalli. Ex.P.98 are four tax paid receipts paid by Hanumakka, which are dated 09.09.1997, 06.05.2005, 28.01.2009 and 18.10.2010. Ex.P100 is the demand register extract in the name of Hanumakka with regard to sheet house and vacant land. Ex.P.101 is the demand register extract in-respect of property No. 228 and 334, wherein name of Lingaiah has been 78 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 mentioned. Ex.P.102 is the demand register extract wherein name of claimant No. 7 has been entered on 04.11.2003. Ex.P.103 are three tax paid receipts. Ex.P.104 is the photograph. In Ex.P.105 claimant Hanumakka has been identified and marked as Ex.P.105(a). The photo discloses that Hanumakka has attended the wedding. During cross-examination PW.8 admits that he has not produced caste certificates of Lingiah, Hanumakka and Lakshmaiah. It is elicited that father of PW.8 is Anjinappa M.S. and his grand father is Somalingaiah. He admits that apart from Genealogical tree he has not produced any documents. He admits that in Ex.P.95 name of Manjula has been mentioned. He admits that Ex.P.95 has been given to Hanumakka by L.A.O. He admits that name of Lingaiah has mentioned in Ex.P.97. He has denied the suggestion Ex.P.97 death certificate has been created subsequent to the case. He admits that he has not produced any documents to show that Lingiah had adopted Anjinappa M.S. as his son. PW.8 has stated 79 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 that his father was taken in adoption when he was child. He admits that Eraiah and Somalingiah are sons of his junior uncle. PW.8 has stated that at the time of preparing Will his father was aged about 55 years. In support of the said contention no document is produced.
.79. PW.8 has examined one Smt. M. Kamaladevi as PW.9. She is the wife of late. M.G. Anjanamurthy. She has stated that her husband was working as practicing advocate at Bengaluru and is native of Motaganahalli village. They have a permanent house at Motaganahalli village and her husband died on 10.04.2021. She has stated that her husband's cremation has taken place at Motaganahalli village. She has stated that Anjinappa M.S. is distant relative to her husband and he used to come to their home frequently during his life time. She has stated that during January 1991 he came to their house and discussed about the Will which is to be executed by one Lingaiah in his favour as he was the adopted son of Lingiah. She has 80 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 stated that her husband being a relative and legal adviser has given some suggestions to him and her husband was also present on the date of execution of registered Will dated 21.01.1991 executed by Lingiah and he told her that he has signed as identification on the said document. She has identified her husband's signature in Ex.P.80 as Ex.P.80(a). She has seens the signature of her husband with regard to original tax paid receipt paid to the BBMP with respect of their west of Chord road property signed by him as per Ex.P.112 and his signature has been identified as per Ex.P.112(a). During cross-examination she has stated that she has signed the affidavit in the Court and she has not met her advocate and contents of the affidavit was stated by Nagahanumaiah. She has denied the suggestion that she was unaware of the contents of the affidavit. She has stated that she knew contents of the affidavit 3-4 months prior to her evidence. She has stated that her husband was not telling her regarding daily transaction. She has stated that the Will was executed by Lingaiah 81 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 in-favour of adopted son Anjinappa M.S. and has been written in-respect of the property situated at Dhananayakanahalli. She admits that one Devappa is the scribe of Ex.P.8. He admits that signatures of Anjinamurthy in Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.112 are slightly different. However she denies the signatures have been signed by different persons. She has stated that she came to know that Anjinappa M.S. is adopted son of Lingaiah during 1991 when her husband told her. She admits that till today she has not stated the said fact before the Court.
.80. On perusal of the Will it is seen that Anjinappa Murthy has identified the signature of Lingaiah before the Sub-registrar. Anjinappa Murthy is not one of the attesting witness. So evidence of PW.9 does not prove the attestaton of the Will.
.81. The counsel for the claimant No. 7(b) to (f) has relied upon the decisions reported in :
1) ILR 2008 KAR 2115
2) AIR 1995 SC No. 2491 82 L.A.C. No. 153/2003
3) AIR 1999 SC No.443
4) AIR 2004 SC 1772
5) AIR SC 300 These decisions related as to how Will has to be proved. The principles laid down in the said decisions are taken note. The burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed and genuine document is on the propounder. It is true that Will is registered one and the same by itself would not mean that statutory requirement of proving the Will need not be complied with. The Will being a registered one, its genuineness should be presumed. The Will has been executed on 21.01.1991 was held to be proved being a document more than 30 years old. This presumption is confined to the execution and attestation. There cannot be presumption as to the truth and contents of the document.
.82. PW.8 has produced original Will executed in- favour of his father Anjinappa M.S. It can be said that Will has been produced from proper custody. The 83 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he has put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. The only contention taken up by claimant No. 7(a) Manjula is that the Will has been created and fabricated document. It is stated that the alleged Will dated 21.01.1991 purported to be executed by Lingaiah has not mentioned the relationship between said Anjinappa M.S. and his father's name. It is stated that as there is no relationship between Lingaiah and Anjinappa M.S. the question of executing the Will does not arise. PW.8 has produced the document to show that Anjinappa M.S. was son of Somashekaraiah junior uncle son of Lingaiah. PW.5 has stated that that the properties mentioned in the Will have been transferred to the name of Anjinappa M.S. after the death of Lingiah. Ex.P.114 is the RTC Extract in Sy.No. 114 of Motaganahalli. In the said docuemnt, Lingaiah is shown to be owner of 11 guntas in Col. No. 9. Ex.P.115 is the RTC Extract in- 84
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 respect of Sy.No.114, wherein name of Anjinappa M.S. has been entered in-respect of 11 guntas. Ex.P.116 is the mutation which discloses that name of Giriyamma has been entered on the basis of pouthi. Giriyamma is the wife of Anjinappa M.S. Ex.P.100 is the house tax assessment extract with respect to the sheet house and vacant land. Anubhavadar is referred to as Lingiah for the year 1993-94. Ex.P.102 is the house list extract, which is standing in the name of Giriyamma w/o Anjinappa M.S. Sy No. 115, sheet house and vacant land are the properties bequeathed by Lingaiah.
.83. The above transfer in the name of Anjinappa M.S. or his wife has not been challenged by any one person legally entitled to inherit even after 12 year after the death of Hanumakka. It is the claim of PW.7 Manjula that she was brought up by Lingiah and Hanumakka. She has not stated that during 1991 Lingaiah was suffering from illness and did not have sound disposition of mind. There exist no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Will. 85
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Therefore, I hold that the Will in question is genuine and has been duly executed by Lingaiah.
.84. Under Ex.P.80 Will the acquired property bearing Sy.No. 33 has not been bequeathed to Anjinappa M.S. In the Will Anjinappa M.S. has been referred to as adopted son.
.85. As per Section 5 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1958, no adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in this chapter (Section.5 -17) and any adoption made in contravention of the said provisions shall be void.
.86. As per Section 11, the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth to the family of its adoption.
.87. The prime effect of a valid adoption is that an adopted child is deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purpose from the date 86 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 of the adoption and all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth become severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family as laid down in Section 12.
.88. As per Section 5(2) of the General Rule of Hindu Adoption law, where there has been adoption in form, but such adoption is invalid, the adopted person does not acquire any rights in the adoptive family, nor does he forfeit his rights in his natural family.
.89. In the present case, except the Will, where there is reference to adoption no other document has been produced to show that Anjinappa M.S. was given in adoption. There is no evidence of any independent person with regard to the child given and taken in adoption and as to when adoption took place. In all the documents produced by PW.8 father of Anjinappa M.S. is referred to as Somalingaiah. There is no reference to adoptive father or mother Lingaiah and Hanumakka. There is also no evidence placed to show that Anjinappa M.S. had given up his property right in-respect of his 87 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 natural family. The materials before the Court are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the conditions mentioned in the Hindu Adoption Act are satisfied. Hence, Anjinappa M.S. cannot be considered as adoptive son.
.90. Late. Smt. Hanumakka is entitled for compensation to an extent of 5 acres of land. It is open for her legal heirs to file suit as to who is entitled to seek for compensation. This order will not come in the way of claimant No.7(a) to (f) to establish their right.
.91. It is submitted that the B.D.A. had acquired Sy.No. 33. The B.D.A. has sent reference in L.A.C. No. 147/2003 in Sy.No. 33/1 measuring 5,36 guntas. L.A.C. No. 146/2003 in-respect of Sy.No. 33/4 measuring 2 acres 31 guntas. L.A.C. No. 179/2003 in- respect of Sy.No. 33/6 measuring 16 acres 7 guntas. L.A.C. No. 153/2003 in-respect of Sy.No. 33/5 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas.
.92. From the above evidence, it is clear that 25 acres of land granted by Bhoodhana Committee Board 88 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 has been distributed to original grantees in-respect of Sy.No. 33 measuring 5 acres each i.e., (1) Lingaiah, in view of his death, to his wife Hanumakka; (2) Chikkalingaiah S/o Motaganahalli Lingaiah, (3) Poojappa, in view of his death, to his children Siddarasappa and Sidda Marappa; (4) Yallappa, in view of his death, to his children Chikka Muniyappa, Mallaiah and grand son Rajappa and (5) Chowdappa, since death his wife Alumelamma @ Alumelu. In MR No.9/91 has been ordered to be entered in the names of the above grantees.
.93. From the above discussion and Ex.P.60, LRs of Yadalam Subbaiah Setty and sons are entitled for 15 acres 9 guntas in Sy.No. 33. As per RTC Extract, names of all the grantees have been entered in-respect of 5 acres each in Sy.No. 33. This reference is in- respect of Sy.No. 33/5. The RTC Extract produced by claimants is in-respect of Sy.No. 33. None of the claimants have produced RTC Extracts in-respect of Sy.No. 33/5 subsequent to the order of Deputy 89 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Commissioner, none of the claimants have stated about the boundaries of their 5 acres. It is stated that the land has not been phoded. In the absence of document, I am of the view that LRs of original 5 grantees are each entitled for 5 acres. In the present case the extent is only 2 acres 34 guntas and one guntas of kharab land.
.94. The LRs of claimant No. 8 are together entitled for 38 guntas. The LRs of Hanumakka are entitled for compensation in-respect of 38 guntas. Compensation payable to the LRs of Hanumakka will be after determination of their right by the competent Civil Court. The LRs of claimant No. 14 are together entitled for compensation to an extent of 38 guntas. Each of the original grantees are entitled to compensation only in- respect of 5 acres. Only portion of compensation has been paid in this case. So it is ordered that the order passed in this case be kept in L.A.C. No. 146/2003, L.A.C. No. 179/2003 and L.A.C. No. 147/2003. After paying compensation to original grantees the excess extent if any will be considered in-respect of legal heirs 90 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 of Yadalam Subbaiah Setty. Accordingly the point No. 1 is answered.
.95. POINT NO.2: In view of my finding on the above point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The reference made by the respondent under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is hereby partly allowed.
LRs of claimant No. 8 are together entitled for 38 guntas.LRs of Hanumakka - claimant No. 7
are entitled for 38 guntas. Legal heirs of Hanumakka have to establish their right in the appropriate suit. Compensation payable to the LRs of Hanumakka will be after determination of their right by the competent Civil Court.
LRs of claimant No. 14 are together entitled for compensation to an extent of 38 guntas.
The claim made by claimants 21 to 30 are dismissed.
91
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Each of the original grantees are entitled to compensation only in-respect of 5 acres. Only portion of compensation has been paid in this case. So it is ordered that the order passed in this case be kept in L.A.C. No. 146/2003, L.A.C. No. 179/2003 and L.A.C. No. 147/2003.
After paying compensation to original grantees the excess extent if any will be considered in-respect of legal heirs of Yadalam Subbaiah Setty.
The above Claimants shall have to execute indemnity bonds with one surety each, undertaking to re-deposit the compensation amount either in this court or in any other court, if ordered to do so, which amount they are going to receive in this case.
Above claimants are entitled to interest under Section 34 of the L.A. Act. The amount already paid by L.A.O., has to be deducted.
The reference made by the respondent under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, in-respect of remaining claimants is hereby rejected.
92
L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Claim of claimants 19 and 20 does not survive for consideration.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 29th day of October 2022.) (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANT:
PW.1 : Varalakshmi PW.2 : Sakamma PW.3 : Gowramma PW.4 : Vijay Kumar PW.5 : Venkatesh Kamath PW.6 : Sidappa PW.7 : Mangala PW.8 : Nagahanumaiah PW.9 : M. Kamaladevi 93 L.A.C. No. 153/2003
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANT:
Ex.P.1 Death certificate of Halamelamma Ex.P.2 Death certificate of Choudaiah Ex.P.3 Death certificate of Dugalaiah Ex.P.4 Death certificate of Narasimhamurthy Ex.P.5 Death certificate of Siddalingamma Ex.P.6 Genealogy tree belongs to claimant No.14(a) and (b) family Ex.P.7 Certificated of genealogy tree issued by the Deputy Thasildar Ex.P.8 Affidavit pertaining to Genealogical tree Ex.P.9 Order in RRT(1) dispute 13/99-2000 Ex.P.10 to 13 RTC Ex.P.14 Mutation (3 sheets) Ex.P.15 Death Certificate Ex.P.16 Death Certificate of Yellappa Ex.P.17 Order in WP No.42212/2003 Ex.P.18 to 32 RTC Ex.P.33 Record of rights Ex.P.35 Joint memo (xerox copy) filed in WP No.42212/2003 claimant No.21 to 30 advocate submits xerox copy can not be marked. Claimant No.1 to 5 advocate submits original document has been destroyed by the concerned branch. The above documents is marked subject to production of endorsement Ex.P.36 Order on I.A U/o 22 rule 10 of CPC in O.S. NO.646/2005 Ex.P.37 Order on I.A U/o 22 rule 10 of CPC in O.S. NO.647/2005 94 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Ex.P.38 Order on I.A U/o 22 rule 10 of CPC in O.S. NO.648/2005 Ex.P.39 Order on I.A U/o 22 rule 10 of CPC in O.S. NO.649/2005 Ex.P.40 to Order sheet in O.S. 645/2005 to 43,34 649/2005 Ex.P 44 17 photographs Ex.P45 Agreement of sale Ex.P.46 Order of Tahsildar Ex.P.47 RTC Extract from 1969-2001 (7 sheets) Ex.P.48 RTC for the year 2015-16 Ex.P.49 Illegible copy of mutation Ex.P.50 Mutation (3 sheets) Ex.P.51 Genealogical tree Ex.P.52 Death certificate of Chikkalingaiah Ex.P.53 Death certificate of Munivenkatamma Ex.P.54 Death certificate of Ramaiah Ex.P.55 Death certificate of Manjunath Ex.P.56 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.57 & 58 Endorsement Ex.P.59 Award notice Ex.P.60 Order of Tahsildar in RRT No. 13/1999-
2000
Ex.P.61 Order of AC RA (a) 174/2002-03
Ex.P.62 Aadhar card of Siddappa
Ex.P.63 T.C.
Ex.P.64 Aadhar card
Ex.P.65 Order passed by the Tahsildar in case No.
21, 22, 23 & 24
95
L.A.C. No. 153/2003
Ex.P.66 Order passed by the Tahsildar in RRT
13/99-00
Ex.P.67 RTC Extract standing in the name of
Hanumakka
Ex.P.68 Mutation
Ex.P.69 RTC Extract
Ex.P.70 Certified copy of award notice
Ex.P.71 & 72 Endorsement dated 18.05.2018 Ex.P.73 RTC Extract Ex.P.74 Mutation Ex.P.75 Certificate with regard to tenancy Ex.P.76 Family tree along with affidavit Ex.P.77 RTC Extract Ex.P.78 List of documents Ex.P.79 Death certificate of Hanumakka Ex.P.80 Registered Will Ex.P.81 Death certificate of Hanumakka Ex.P.82 & 83 Voter ID cards Ex.P.84 Death certificate of Anjinappa M.S. Ex.P.85 to 89 Aadhar cards Ex.P.90 Genealogical tree Ex.P.91 Affidavit Ex.P.92 Order sheet in RAS No. 271/2022 (20 sheets) Ex.P.93 BEO report (3 sheets) Ex.P.94 RTC Extract Ex.P.95 & 96 Award notice Ex.P.97 Death certificate of Ningaiah Ex.P.98 Tax paid receipts (4 in numbers) 96 L.A.C. No. 153/2003 Ex.P.99 Documents issued by Tahsildar through RTI (14 sheets) Ex.P.100 to Demand register extracts 102 Ex.P.103 Tax paid receipts (3 in numbers) Ex.P.104, Photographs. Witness identifies 105, 105(a), Hanumakka which is marked as 106, 107, Ex.P.105(a) 108 Ex.P.109 C.D. pertaining to Ex.P.104 t0 109 Ex.P.110 Death certificate of Anjanamurthy Ex.P.111 Aadhar card of witness Ex.P.80(2) Witness has identified the signature of her husband in Ex.P.80 Ex.P.112 Property tax challan Ex.P.112(a) Witness has identified the signature of her husband in Ex.P.112
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Nil (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.
97 L.A.C. No. 153/2003