Bangalore District Court
Rasal Bai vs The Chief Secretay on 1 September, 2025
KABC0A0036792010
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 1st day of September, 2025.
PRESENT:
Sri BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU, B.Sc., LL.B.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.26278/2010
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Mrs. Rasal Bai,
W/o. Late K.G. Mothilal,
Aged about 66 years.
2. G.M. Kamal Kumar,
S/o. Late K.G. Mothilal,
Aged about 45 years.
3. G.M. Kishore Kumar Kataria,
S/o. Late K.G. Mothilal,
Aged about 37 years.
4. G.M. Pankaj Kumar,
S/o. Late K.G. Mothilal,
Aged about 35 years.
All are residing at No.29,
Chinnaswamyu Mudaliar Road,
Bangalore - 560 051.
(By Sri V. Anand, Advocate)
Cont'd..
2 O.S.No.26278/2010
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. The Chief Secretary,
State of Karnataka,
Ambedkar Road, Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 051.
2. The Managing Director,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board, Kheny
Building, 1st Cross, 3rd Floor,
Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board, Kheny
Building, 1st Cross, 3rd Floor,
Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board, (BMICB),
Maurya Mansion, 3rd Floor,
1st Cross, Gandhinagar,
Bangalore-560 009.
4. M/s. Nandi Infrastructure
Coridiar Enterprises Limited,
Represented by its Managing
Director, No.1, Midford House,
Milford Garden, Bangalore-560001.
(D.1 and D.2 : Ex-parte)
(D.3 by Sri R.R., Advocate)
(D.4 by Sri J.N.A., Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 12-08-2010
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration & Injunction Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 11-03-2019
of recording of the evidence
3 O.S.No.26278/2010
Date on which the Judgment : 01-09-2025
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 15years, --months, 18days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the relief of declaration to declare that, plaintiffs are absolute and rightful owners of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have also sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendants, their contractors, henchmen or anyone acting under therm from interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and grant such other reliefs.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as under:
That, Sy.No.121/5 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas, situated at Kengari Village, Bengaluru, which is suit schedule property was purchased by husband of 4 O.S.No.26278/2010 plaintiff No.1 late K.G. Mothilal under registered sale deed dated 08.04.1974 from Sri Nanjundappa. Suit property is self acquired property of K.G. Mothilal. Since date of purchase of suit property, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of same and based on purchas of property, his name mutated to suit property under MR.No.11/74-75. Sy.No.121/5 totally measuring 5 acres was originally belonged to Sanjeevappa S/o. Narasappa, same was granted to him under Dharkasth Saguvali chit. After death of Sanjeevappa, there were several sale transactions in respect of suit property and ultimately K.G. Mothilal had acquired suit property under sale deed from Nanjundappa. There is no kharab land in suit property and entire land is cultivable land. After resurvey, Sy.No.121/5 has been renumbered as Sy.No.275. Sy.No.121 was totally measuring 61 acres 10 guntas. Out of total extent, property to an extent of 16 acres 10 guntas has been granted by State Government to B.D. Jatty Educational Trust. Remaining land of 45 acres in the hands of private persons. Suit schedule property is not notified for acquisition. Defendant No.4 being a 5 O.S.No.26278/2010 powerful company having political backing is trying to interfere in plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of suit property. The plaintiffs caused legal notice to defendants No.1 to 3 by furnishing all details about suit property but defendants never replied to notice issued by plaintiff. On these pleadings, the plaintiffs have prayed to decree the suit as prayed in plaint.
3. In response to the service of suit summons, defendant No.3 and 4 have tendered their appearance before the court through their respective counsels. The defendants No.3 and 4 have filed their separate written statement and contested case. Even after service of suit summons, defendant No.1 and 2 have not tendered their appearance before court and contested suit, consequently, they were placed Ex-parte.
4. The contents of written statement of defendant No.3 in brief are as under :-
That, the suit of plaintiff is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. The State of Karnataka initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire several lands in different survey numbers for 6 O.S.No.26278/2010 formation of Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP). Preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of KIAD Act was issued on 19.12.1998. It is further contended, Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village is Government Land measuring 61 acres 10 guntas. Out of said extent, land to an extent of 45 acres is phot kharab. The said kharab land vest with State Government. The State Government has transferred said land through PWD to defendant No.4 company by means of lease for 30 years as per order dated 07.09.1998. Property claimed by plaintiff is part and parcel of Government kharab land. The plaintiffs are trying to make illegal gains by making claim over Government property which has been transferred to defendant No.4 for implementation of project. The Taluka Surveyor from office of Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk has prepared sketch in respect of Sy.No.121 of Kengari Hobli. In said sketch, schedule property is shown as one which was allotted to defendant No.4 by Government on lease for a period of 30 years. There is no cause of action for plaintiffs to file 7 O.S.No.26278/2010 present suit. On these grounds, it is requested to dismiss suit filed by plaintiffs with exemplary costs.
5. The contents of written statement of defendant No.4 in brief are as under :-
That, suit of plaintiff is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine. The defendant disputes very existence and identity of suit property. There is no property corresponding to description of suit property exists either in or anywhere in vicinity of land in Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village. Land bearing Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village, allegedly out of which suit property has been transferred by Government for BMIC project. The defendant No.4 entered into a Frame Work agreement dated 03.04.1997 with State of Karnataka to implement Bengaluru-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project. Validity of Frame Work agreement and BMICP project has been challenged before Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in many writ petitions and appeals. The Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court have time and again up held validity of 8 O.S.No.26278/2010 FWA and BMICP project in public interest. It is further contended, Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village was totally measuring 61 acres 10 guntas, which is land belonging to Government of Karnataka. The Government of Karnataka vide notification issued under Section 3(1) of KIAD Act, 1966 published in official gazette dated 27.10.1998 declared land in Sy.No.121 measuring 61 acres 10 guntas as industrial area. On 07.10.1999 Government of Karnataka passed order according approval to lease certain land of KIADB for onward transfer of same in favour of defendant No.4 for BMIC Project. An extent of Government land measuring 45 acres in Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village has been sanctioned for BMIC Project as per Government order dated 07.10.1999. As per possession certificate dated 07.06.2000 land was handed over to defendant No.4 by KIADB. It is further contended, there is no land bearing Sy.No.121/5 either part of or in the vicinity of Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village. Alleged transfers if any and alleged grant in favour of Sanjeevappa are all untrue and invalid. The defendant No.4 is in lawful possession of 45 acres of land in Sy.No.121 of Kengari 9 O.S.No.26278/2010 Village. As such, question of this defendant interfering with alleged possession of plaintiffs over suit property does not arise. There is no cause of action to file present suit. On these grounds, it is requested to dismiss suit filed by plaintiffs.
6. On the basis of above pleadings of both parties, this court has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property bearing Old Sy.No.121-5 and New Sy.No.275 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas of Kengere Village situated within the boundaries shown in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants caused interference?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for permanent injunction?
4. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that the entire land bearing Sy.No.121 of Kengere Village being a Government Land which was transferred by way of lease to the both defendants for formation of Bangalore-Mysore infrastructure corridor projects? 10 O.S.No.26278/2010
5. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not valued properly and court fee paid insufficient?
6. What order or decree?
RECASTED ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are owners of suit schedule property bearing Old Sy.No.121-5 and New Sy.No.275 measuring 2 acre 30 guntas of Kengeri Village?
7. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.3 has examined himself as PW1 and produced in all 59 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P.59. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative of defendant No.4 has examined himself as D.W.1, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, (BMICB) of defendant No.3 have examined themselves as D.W.2 and 3 and produced 9 document as Exs.D.1 to D.9.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendants and I have perused the case records.
11 O.S.No.26278/2010
9. My answers to the above issues are as under-
Recasted ISSUE No.1 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.2 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.3 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.4 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.5 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.6 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
10. RECASTED ISSUE No.1 :- It is claim of plaintiffs that, they being legal heirs of K.G. Mothilal, they are owners and in possession of suit schedule property. In schedule to plaint, suit schedule property has been described as, all that piece and parcel of kharab land bearing old Sy.No.121/5 and New No.275, measuring 2 acres 30 guntas, situated at Kengeri Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
11. The plaintiffs in order to show, late K.G. Mothilal had purchased suit schedule property under registered sale deed have produced original sale deed as per Ex.P.1. On careful perusal of Ex.P.1 which is sale deed dated 08.04.1974, K.G. Mothilal had purchased 12 O.S.No.26278/2010 suit schedule property from Nanjundappa S/o. Nalla Pillappa.
12. It is specifically pleaded by plaintiffs and same is deposed by plaintiff No.3, who examined as P.W.1 that, property bearing Sy.No.121/5, measuring 5 acres situated at Kengeri Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was originally belonged to one Sanjeevappa S/o. Narasappa and said property was granted to him under Darkhast Saguvali Chit. It is fact that, plaintiffs have explained in para - 7 of plaint, how vendor of K.G. Mothilal has acquired suit property.
13. It is specifically stated, after death of Sanjeevappa, there are several sale transactions in respect of suit property and ultimately Nanjundappa sold suit property in favour of K.G. Mothilal as per Ex.P.1. It is specifically pleaded by plaintiffs, based on Darkhast grant of suit property in favour of Sanjeevappa there was mutation entry bearing No.8/1937-38.
13 O.S.No.26278/2010
14. It is evident from evidence of P.W.1, when plaintiffs have claiming there was Darkhast grant of land bearing Sy.No.121/5 measuring 5 acres 10 guntas in favour of Sanjeevappa, it shall have to be presumed said land belonged to Government. It is specifically contended by contesting defendants that, Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village, totally measuring 61 acre 10 guntas , which is land belonging to Government of Karnataka. It is further contended, the Government of Karnataka vide notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 published in official gazette dated 27.10.1988 declared land in Sy.No.121 measuring 61 acres 10 guntas as Industrial lands. It is further contended by contesting defendants that, subsequently Government of Karnataka passed an order dated 07.10.1999 and thereby according approval to lease certain Government Lands in favour of KIADB for onward transfer of the same in favour of defendant No.4 for the purpose of BMIC Project.
15. Looking into pleadings of parties to suit as referred above, when plaintiffs claim mainly rests on Ex.P.1 sale deed, heavy burden is on plaintiffs to prove 14 O.S.No.26278/2010 vendor of late K.G. Mothilal, who is Nanjundappa had legally and lawfully acquired suit schedule property. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has deposed, in the year 1937, Sy.No.121 measuring 5 acres 10 guntas was granted to Sanjeevappa under Darkhast grant. The authorize representative of defendant No.4 company, who examined as D.W.1 and Special LAO-1, KIADB (BMICP), Bengaluru who examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3 in their evidence have categorically stated, Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village measuring 61 acres 10 guntas belonged to Government of Karnataka.
16. As already discussed, when plaintiffs are claiming Sy.No.121 to an extent 5 acres was granted to Sanjeevappa under Darkhast grant, they cannot dispute said land originally belonged to Government of Karnataka. The plaintiffs must prove there was legal and valid Darkhast grant of Sy.No.121 to an extent of 5 acres in favour of Sanjeevappa which was by following all due procedures known to law under relevant act.
17. It material to note here that, P.W.1 in his cross-examination has pleaded his ignorance as to 15 O.S.No.26278/2010 whether plaintiffs have produced Darkhast grant order and Suguvali chit issued in favour of Sanjeevappa before court. On careful perusal of documents produced by plaintiffs, those material documents are not placed before court. On the other hand, index of land has been produced as per Ex.P.34. In said document, in respect of 121 to an extent of 5 acres, it is mentioned, there was Darkhast grant of land in favour of Sanjeevappa and he has been continued in possession and enjoyment of same.
18. Ex.P.33 is the MR.No.8/1937-38 wherein it is mentioned land in Sy.No.121/5 to an extent of 5 acres was granted under Darkhast Saguvali Chit to Sanjeevappa S/o. Narasappa. Ex.P.32 is MR.No.36/1959-60 wherein it is mentioned, Kalaiah S/ o. Chikkaguddaiah sold Sy.No.121/5 to an extent of 5 acres to Yallappa, Puttappa and others.
19. In order to show, subsequent to death of original grantee Sanjeevappa, there were transactions in respect of suit property, plaintiffs have produced encumbrance certificates as per Exs.P.20 to P.23. In 16 O.S.No.26278/2010 said documents, transactions in respect of Sy.No.121/5 of Kengeri Village to an extent of 5 acres entered from the year 1958 to 1974. Ex.P.2 is MR.No.11/1974-75 wherein it is mentioned, Nanjundappa S/o. Pillappa had sold suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.121/5 to an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas in favour of K.G. Mothilal as per registered sale deed dated 08.04.1974.
20. As already discussed, in Ex.P.21 there is mention about deed dated 08.04.1974 in respect of suit property executed by Nanjundappa in favour of K.G. Mothilal. The D.W.2 in his cross-examination has deposed, earlier Sy.No.121 measuring 61 acres 10 guntas of Kengeri Village, it was entered as Government land in revenue records and later, it was granted to some private persons as such name of Government in revenue records not continued.
21. On perusal of Exs.P.3 to P.6 name of K.G. Mothilal and his brother entered to Sy.No.121/5 to an extent of 5 acres. As per Exs.P.7 to P.9 name of K.G. Mothilal rounded off and thereafter in Exs.P.10 to P.20 name of plaintiff No.1 shown as owner and possessor of suit property. Exs.P.28 to P.30 tax paid receipts 17 O.S.No.26278/2010 pertaining to suit property. Ex.P.31 is agricultural pass book in the name of plaintiff No.1.
22. The plaintiffs have specifically stated, after resurvey of land in Sy.No.121/5 it was renumbered as Sy.No.275. In order to substantiate same, plaintiffs have much relied on survey sketch issued by competent authority as per Ex.P.25. On perusal of said document, it is forthcoming as per order dated 25.05.2006 issued by Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, earlier Sy.No.121 renumbered as Sy.No.275 of Kengeri Vilalge. Ex.P.26 is mutation order bearing No.95/2005-06 wherein name of plaintiff No.1 mutated to suit property. Ex.P.27 is Akarbandh dated 27.10.2003. Exs.P.43 to P.53 are recent records of rights pertaining to suit property. Ex.P.58 is recent survey sketch issued by competent authority in respect of Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village.
23. The learned counsel for plaintiffs has vehemently argued that, all documents placed by plaintiffs before court are public documents. As per provisions of Section 74 and Section 78 of BSA, these 18 O.S.No.26278/2010 documents are public documents which are issued by concerned officials and same are admissible in evidence.
24. It is required to be noted here, no doubt, it is true, these are long standing revenue records and mutation orders as referred above in name of K.G. Mothilal to show how his vendors as well as how name of plaintiff No.1 entered to suit property but it is settled law that, revenue records are not title documents. In this regard, learned counsel for defendant No.4 has rightly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1483 in case of P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar, wherein it is held that, it is trite law that, revenue records are not documents of title. revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question. mere mutation of records would not divest owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. Mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. It is 19 O.S.No.26278/2010 settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses, the principle arising from the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, i.e., "no one can confer a better title than what he himself has".
25. In the light of principle laid down in above decision, revenue records are not title document. Herein the case, claim of plaintiff that, K.G. Mothilal had purchased suit property under Ex.P.1 is sustainable only when it is sufficiently proved by plaintiffs that, there was Darkhast grant of Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village to an extent of 5 acres in favour of Sanjeevappa S/o. Narasappa. Admittedly, order of Darkhast grant not produced before court. Only index land and mutation orders have been produced to show, there was Darkhast grant of land in favour of Sanjeevappa. Admittedly no documents placed on record to show based on land grant committee Tahashildar had granted Sy.No.121 to an extent of 5 acres of Kengeri Village to Sanjeevappa. It is also not sufficiently established before court by following all due procedures known to law MR.No.8/1937-38 as per Ex.P.33 was effected 20 O.S.No.26278/2010 which is based on Darkhast grant order of Tahasildhar in favour of Sanjeevappa. As and when plaintiff has not placed Darkhast grant order pertaining to Sy.No.121 to an extent of 5 acres in favour of Sanjeevappa, subsequent sale deed and revenue records have no value in the eyes of law based on which plaintiffs cannot claim title over suit schedule property. No attempts made by plaintiffs by producing Darkhast grant order or Saguvali Chit to establish all those transactions entered after death of alleged original grantee Sajeevappa as mentioned in encumbrance certificates relied by plaintiffs are based on valid and legal grant of property to Sanjeevappa under Darkhast grant.
26. May be it is true, as rightly contended by learned counsel for plaintiffs, there are public documents, which are revenue documents and mutation orders pertaining to suit property. When it is definite case of plaintiffs that, based on Darkhast grant, Sanjeevappa had right and title over property, on proving same only plaintiffs are permitted to contend revenue records and sale deeds are based a valid and 21 O.S.No.26278/2010 legal documents which are in consequence of Darkhast grant.
27. All subsequent sale deeds after alleged Darkhast grant of property in favour of Sanjeevappa and revenue records are legally sustainable only when Darkhast grant of Sy.No.121/5 of Kengeri Village to an extent of 5 acres in favour of Sanjeevappa is legally and validly proved. As such, just based on long standing revenue records and sale deeds which are not supported by necessary darkhast grant of land by Government in favour of Sanjeevappa, plaintiffs cannot claim their title and possession over suit property.
28. It is pertinent to note here that, as already discussed, plaintiffs have failed to established by producing Darkhast grant order before court to say there was legal and valid grant of Sy.No.121 to an extent of 5 acres of Kengeri Village in favour of original grantee Sanjeevappa. On careful perusal of Exs.P.33 and P.34 these entries were much prior to Independence of India. On proper and careful appreciation of these documents, stamp of Rs.50ps which is come into 22 O.S.No.26278/2010 existence after Independence of India affixed to these documents.
29. The learned counsel for plaintiffs has argued that, certified copies of documents are admissible without being proved by calling a witnesses. In this regard, the learned counsel for plaintiffs has relied upon decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 1998 KAR SN. No.16, wherein it is held that, presumption regarding entries in the cultivators column in RTC. There is statutory presumption available under section 133 of Karnataka Land Reveue Act in favour of person about his possession over property whose name is appearing in pahani.
30. The learned counsel for plaintiffs has further relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SCC 1633 in case of Madamanchi Ramappa and others Vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa, wherein it is held that, certified copy of public documenta are admissible in evidence without being proved by calling a witness and no objection raised to mode of proof either in trial court or in an appellate 23 O.S.No.26278/2010 court - High Court commits error of law in rejecting such document on ground that it had not been proved.
31. It is fact that, sale deed executed in favour of K.G. Mothilal by Nanjundappa and earlier sale deeds pertaining to suit property as mentioned in encumbrance certificates produced by plaintiffs are not supported by original darkhast grant order and Saguvali Chit. It is true as rightly contended by learned counsel for plaintiffs that, Revenue entries got presumptive value with regard to possession of person whose name entered in those records as per Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, but it is settled law that, such presumption is rebuttable one. Herein the case defendants have sufficiently discharged said presumption attached to revenue entries by producing documents before court that, land bearing Survey No. 121 of Kengere Village originally belonged to Government and by Government notification and transfer of Government land on lease, property to an extent of 45 acres in Sy.No. 121 of Kengeri Village has been transferred to defendant No. 4 company for BMIC project. As such, principles laid down in above 24 O.S.No.26278/2010 decisions relied upon by learned counsel for plaintiffs are not aptly applicable for facts and circumstances of present case in hand.
32. The learned counsel for plaintiffs has drawn attention of the court to Ex. P.54, which is a conversion order issued in respect of Sy No. 275 of Kengeri Village to an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas. It is fact that, during pendency of suit, plaintiffs approached concerned authority and got converted suit property into non agricultural purpose. Further Learned counsel for plaintiffs has drawn attention of the court to letter issued by Special Land Acquisition Officer KIADB, Bangalore, as per Ex.P.55 wherein it is mentioned, suit property bearing Survey No. 121/5, New Survey No. 275 has not been notified under a notification issued by the Government under KADB Act. Further, the learned counsel for plaintiffs has drawn attention of the court to Ex.P58, which is a sketch issued by survey authorities. Based on these documents, it is argued on behalf of learned counsel for plaintiffs, as per documents issued by KIDB itself, the suit property is not acquired for BMIC project, it is plaintiffs who are in possession and 25 O.S.No.26278/2010 enjoyment of the same and they have converted it into non agriculture purpose.
33. Herein the case plaintiffs have approached a court seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendants. As such, the plaintiffs who approached the court seeking declarative relief, burden is on them to establish their case irrespective of whether defendants prove their case or not. Weakness of case setup by defendants cannot be a ground to grant relief to plaintiffs. In this regard, a reference has to be made to decision relied by counsel for plaintiffs reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 in case of Union of India and others v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and others. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the negative.
34. ISSUE NO.4 :- The defendants have specifically contended that, defendant No.4 is in lawful possession of 45 acres of land in Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village. It is specifically pleaded and deposed by D.W.1 to D.W.3 that, Government has notified Sy.No.121 to an extent of 61 acres 10 guntas and issued notification 26 O.S.No.26278/2010 under KIADB Act and subsequently by order dated 17.10.1999 accorded approval of transfer of land of Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village in favour of defendant No.4 for the purpose of BMICP. Ex.P.59 is letter issued by Special LAO-I KIADB (BMICP), Bengaluru wherein it is mentioned Sy.No.275 (old Sy.No.121/5) to an extent 2 acres 10 guntas of land is not included final notification issued under Section 28(4) of KIADB Act. As per Ex.D.2 dated 21.01.2023 it is mentioned Sy.No.121 measuring 45 acres of Kengeri Village has been handed over KIADB.
35. Ex.D.3 is Government notification dated 30.10.1998 wherein Sy.No.121 to an extent of 61 acres 10 guntas of Kengeri Village clearly notified under KIADB Act. Ex.D.4 is transaction of government land on lease as per GO dated 27.03.1997. At serial No.17 it is mentioned Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village to an extent of 45 acres. Ex.D.5 is lease deed dated 04.07.2002 under which KIADB has leased out Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village to an extent of 45 acres to defendant No.4 for BMIC Project. Likewise, Ex.D.7 is notification dated 19.12.1998 passed under Section 28(1) of KIADB Act 27 O.S.No.26278/2010 wherein Sy.No.121 to an extent of 61 acres 10 guntas mentioned.
36. It is fact as per Ex.D.7 that, the names of Chennaiah S/o. Sanjeevaiah and others mentioned as possessor of some extent of land in Sy.No.l21 of Kengeri Village. As per Exs.D.8 and D.9 possession of Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village to an extent of 45 acres was handed over to defendant No.4 for BMIC project.
37. It is material to note here that, D.W.2 in his cross-examination has deposed, phot kharab land means non-cultivable land which belonging to Government. It is stated by D.W.2 that, tippan, Akarabhand and in records of rights of Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village it is mentioned about kharab land. It is admitted by D.W.2 that, in respect of private property there is classification of 'A' kharab land and 'B' kharab land. It is clearly admitted by D.W.2 that, in respect of 'A' kharab land owner of property can claim is right over kharab land.
28 O.S.No.26278/2010
38. An evidence of D.W.2 as mentioned about itself not sufficient to say, defendants are admitting Sy.No.121 to an extent of 5 acres which is Government land was granted to Sanjeevappa under Darkhast grant. Further, Ex.P.59 document issued by Special LAO-I, KIADB, wherein it is mentioned Sy.No.275, old Sy.No.121/5 to an extent of 2acres 10 guntas is not included in final notification issued under Sec.28(4) of KIADB Act is also not sufficient to say plaintiffs have established grant of Sy.No.121 to an extent of 5 acres of Kengeri Village to original grantee Sanjeevappa.
39. As already discussed, D.W.2 in his cross- examination has deposed, some extent of property in total extent of Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village granted to private persons and same is forthcoming in Ex.D.7, that itself not sufficient to say plaintiffs have established grant of property under Dharkast to Sanjeevappa. When plaintiffs have failed to establish before court that, there was Dharkast grant order and suaguvali chit issued by competent authority to Sanjeevappa, just based on mutation, records of rights and sale deeds, tax paid receipts plaintiffs cannot claim suit land belonged 29 O.S.No.26278/2010 to them and same is not notified by KIADB and possession of property not handed over to defendant No.4 BMIC Project. On the other hand, there are sufficient material on records as discussed above to say the Government has handed over remaining land of 45 acres in Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village to defendant No.4 under lease for BMIC project. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 in the affirmative.
40. ISSUE NO.5 :- The defendants have specifically contended that, plaintiffs have not properly valued subject matter of suit and they have not paid proper court fees. On perusal of valuation slip filed along with plaint, plaintiffs have valued subject matter of suit at Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and plaintiffs have paid court fees under Section 7(2) (a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The plaintiffs have shown land assessment at Rs.7.35 paise and paid 25 times revenue.
41. It is to be noted here, in all revenue records produced by plaintiffs before court, as on the date of filing suit, suit property shown as agriculture land. As per Ex.P.54, during pendency of suit, property was 30 O.S.No.26278/2010 converted into non-agricultural purpose, by virtue of a conversion order. Defendants have contended already property was notified under KIAD and lost agriculture character, but fact remains that, as already discussed, as on the date of filing suit, in revenue records pertaining to suit property, it is shown as agriculture land. There is no material on record placed by defendants to show when suit property comes within limits of BBMP. It is also not extracted in cross examination of P.W.1 as to whether as on date of filing suit, said suit schedule property comes within jurisdiction of BBMP. As such, valuation shown by plaintiffs at the time of filing suit and court fees paid by them on the subject matter of suit is just and proper. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in the negative.
42. ISSUES NO.2 AND 3 :- As these issues are inter-related to each other and involves common appreciation of facts and evidence on record, findings on one issue are bearing on other issues, in order to avoid repetition of facts and for convenience sake, all issues are taken together for common discussion. 31 O.S.No.26278/2010
43. As already discussed, the plaintiffs failed to establish by material document that, suit property was originally granted to Sanjeevappa. On the other hand, there is material on record to say, Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village is government property and out of total extent of Sy.No.121, property to an extent of 45 acres was transferred by Government to defendant No.4 for BMIC project. Plaintiffs failed to establish based on sale deed as per Ex.P.1 and revenue records that, K.G. Mothilal and after his death they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property. When plaintiffs failed to establish their lawful possession over suit property and defendants proved, government has handed over suit property to defendant No.4 for BMIC project, plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed in plaint and question of alleged interference by defendants in possession of plaintiffs over suit property does not arise. Hence, I answer issues No.2 and 3 in the negative.
32 O.S.No.26278/2010
44. ISSUES No.6 :- In view of the above said findings on Issue Nos. 1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed & computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 1st day of September, 2025).
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru. ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Examined on:
P.W.1 : G.M. Kishore Kumar Kataria 11-03-2019
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of sale deed
dated 08.04.1974.
Ex.P.2 : Mutation Registrar.
Ex.P.3 : Village Form -II (RTC).
Exs.P.4 : Records of rights
to P.19
Exs.P.20 : Encumbrance Certificates.
to P.23 33 O.S.No.26278/2010 Ex.P.24 : order of khata transfer.
Ex.P.25 : sketch.
Ex.P.26 : Mutation.
Ex.P.27 : Revision Settlement Aakharband. Exs.P.28 : Tax paid receipts.
to P.30 Ex.P.31 : Krishi pass book.
Exs.P.32 : Mutation register.
and P.33 Exs.P.34 : Index of land and RTC and P.35 Ex.P.36 : Legal notice dated 20.01.2010. Exs.P.37 : Postal receipts.
to P.39 Exs.P.40 : Postal acknowledgment.
and P.41 Ex.P.42 : Tax paid receipt.
Exs.P.43 : RTC.
to P.53 Ex.P.54 : Letter dated 07.04.2022.
Ex.P.55 : Letter dated 11.03.2022.
Ex.P.56 : Copy of mutation register.
Ex.P.57 : RTC.
Ex.P.58 : Sketch.
Ex.P.59 : Letter dated 11.03.2022.
34 O.S.No.26278/2010
3.LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Examined on:
D.W.1 : Srinath Mangalore 21-01-2023 D.W.2 : C.L. Shivakumar 09-08-2024 D.W.3 : H.N. Shvigowda 21-03-2025
4.LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D.1 : Evidence of P.W.1 in OS.No.26279/2010. Ex.D.2 : Possession certificate.
Ex.D.3 : Gazetted notification.
Ex.D.4 : Government order.
Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of lease deed. Ex.D.6 : Authorization letter.
Ex.D.7 : Preliminary notification. Ex.D.8 : Notice.
Ex.D.9 : Statement showing the details of Government land (BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.