Bangalore District Court
) Sri. P. Siddalingaiah vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 20 August, 2022
1
L.A.C. No. 311/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 20 th day of August, 2022.
PRESENT:
Smt. Sheila B.M, M.Com.,LLM.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
: LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO.311/2019 :
CLAIMANTS:
1) Sri. P. Siddalingaiah
R/at Rajapura village
Jigani Hobli
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Urban District
2) Sri. Veerabhadrayya
S/o late. Puttaiah
R/at Rajapura village
Jigani Hobli
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Urban District
3) Sri. Narayanappa
S/o late. Chikkanna
R/at Rajapura village
Jigani Hobli
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Urban District
4) Sri. Venkatesh
S/o Muniyappa
R/at Rajapura village
Jigani Hobli
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Urban District
2
L.A.C. No. 311/2019
5) Smt. Mariyamma
W/o late. Puttappa
Aged about 75 years
6)Sri. Choodappa
S/o late. Puttappa
Aged about 41 years
Claimants 5 and 6 are residing
at Rajapura village
Jigani Hobli
Anekal Taluk
Bengaluru -562 106.
7) Muniyamma @ Kurudumuniyamma
W/o late. Chinnappa @ Chikkaputtappa
Aged about 70 years
8) Sri. Somesh
S/o late. Chinnappa @ Chikkaputtappa
Aged about 53 years
9) Sri. Suresh
S/o late. Chinnappa @ Chikkaputtappa
Aged about 50 years
10) Sri. Kumar
S/o late. Chinnappa @ Chikkaputtappa
Aged about 45 years
11) Sri. Sachhi
S/o late. Chinnappa @ Chikkaputtappa
Aged about 38 years
12) Sri. Ajay Kumar
S/o late. Chinnappa @ Chikkaputtappa
Aged about 33 years
Claimants 7 to 12 are residing at
3
L.A.C. No. 311/2019
Near Ayyappaswamy temple
Sreenivagilu
Koramangala
Bengaluru -560 034.
(Sri. MRT, Advocate for C-1)
(Sri. NL, Advocate for C-2)
(Sri. CM, Advocate for C-3 & 4)
(Sri. SMK, Advocate for C-5 to 12)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
(Sri. RHT, Advocate)
: JUDGMENT :
The respondent/SLAO, Karnataka Housing Board, Bengaluru, has made this reference under Section 77(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'RFCTLA Act' for short) for apportionment of compensation amount. 4
L.A.C. No. 311/2019 .2. The brief facts of the case is that the land bearing Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District has been acquired for the purpose of construction of houses. Preliminary notification was published in the Gazette on 30.06.2011. Final notification was published in the Gazette on 07.02.2013. The award was passed on 29.07.2015. The L.A.O. has fixed the compensation of Rs. 1,40,65,574/-. As there was a suit in O.S.No. 353/2012 pending for adjudication before the Senior Division, Anekal and RP No.251/2018 was pending for adjudication before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, the L.A.O. has sent the reference to this Court and has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,40,65,574/-. The said amount has been deposited in the Karnataka Bank Limited, Bull Temple Road Branch, Bengaluru.
.3. After receipt of reference, this court issued notices to claimants. The claimants have entered appearance. The claimant No. 1, 2, 5 to 12 have filed 5 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 claim statements. The claimants 3 and 4 have not filed claim statement.
.4. Claimant No.1 - P. Siddalingaiah has filed claim statement stated that he is the absolute and lawful owner in possession of the land property bearing Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas situated at Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 08.07.1968 from his vendor. It is stated that one Smt. Mariyamma and others have filed O.S.No. 683/2016 before the Senior Civil Judge at Anekal against claimant and respondent and subsequently came to be withdrawn by filing a memo. It is stated that the same person by name Smt. Mariyamma and others have filed RA (A) No. 293/2016-17 as against the claimant and Tahsildar, Anekal taluk and the said petition came to be allowed vide order dated 04.09.2018. The claimant has challenged the same before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, in Revision petition No. 251/2018 and the same came to be allowed on 6 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 16.10.2019 by setting aside the order of Assistant Commissioner with a direction to effect the mutation and transfer the khatha in the name of the claimant in- respect of property in Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas situated at Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli. Hence, prayed to pass an order for release of the compensation.
.5. The claimant No. 2 Veerabhadraiah has filed claim statement stating that he and 8 others of his family members are the absolute owners of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas situated at Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. It is stated that initially the schedule property was owned by the grand father of the claimant No. 2 namely Chikkamunira, who was personally cultivating the same by growing ragi, avare etc., for his livelihood. The said Chikkamunira and his legally wedded wife namely Muniveeramma @ Aduramma had 3 children namely (1) Muniswamy @ Muniswamappa; (2) Puttappa and (3) Chinnappa @ Chikkaputtappa. 7
L.A.C. No. 311/2019 After the demise of Chikkamunira, his children i.e., (1) Muniswamy; (2) Puttappa and (3) Chinnappa, were cultivating the schedule property. However, Muniswamy being eldest son of Chikkamunira, his name was mutated in the Revenue records such as record of rights, RTC Extracts, Hissa survey etc. .6. It is stated that Muniswamy (elder uncle of the claimant No. 2) remained bachelor and issue less throughout his life. However, the father of claimant No. 2 Puttappa married to Mariyamma and out of their legal wed-lock, they got 2 children namely (1) Choodappa (elder son) and (2) Veerabhadraiah @ Kumar (claimant No. 2) being younger son. Similarly, Chinnappa @ Chikkaputtappa (younger uncle of claimant No. 2) married to Muniyamma @ Kurudu Muniyamma and out of their legal wed-lock, they got 5 children namely (1) Somesh; (2) Suresh; (3) Kumar; (4) Sachhi; and (5) Ajay Kumar. Thus, all the persons named above being the legal heirs of the said Chikkamunira, were in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and cultivating 8 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 the same and as such, they are the absolute owners of the schedule property. However, in the revenue records the name of the owner is shown as Muniswamy who is none other than the elder uncle of the claimant No. 2.
.7. It is stated that his elder uncle Muniswamy, being bachelor demised issue less, on 06.04.2012. Thereafter, all the surviving legal heirs of Chikkamunira and Muniswamy @ Muniswamappa named above were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till the said property was acquired by the Government. It is stated that the claimant No. 2, on seeking the name of "Siddalingaiah" (claimant No. 1) as the "Kathedar" and the "person in possession" in column No. 2 and 3, respectively, in the said public notification bearing No. K.E. 181/2012 dated 26.12.2012, was astonished, shocked and surprised. He obtained the certified copies of the revenue records such as RTC Extracts, RR and MR etc., and also obtained the Encumbrance certificate and certified 9 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 copies of two sale deeds dated 25.07.1961 and 08.07.1968.
.8. It is stated that on perusal of the above documents, the claimant No. 2 realized that, his uncle Muniswamy (now deceased), during his life time had sold the land bearing Sy.No. 30 measuring 1 acre situated in Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District under a sale deed dated 25.07.1961, in-favour of Chikkanna S/o Shambanna. The said Chikkanna and Siddalingaiah (claimant No. 1) in collusion with each other, with an intention to grab the schedule property by cheating the said Muniswamy and his family members, including the claimant No. 2 have fraudulently created an illegal sale deed dated 08.07.1968 which was executed by the said Chikkanna in-favour of Siddalingaiah under which the Chikkanna said to have been conveyed 1 acre 2 guntas of land in Sy.No. 223/4 of Rajapura village .9. It is stated that Chikkanna had no manner of right, title and interest in the schedule property, he 10 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 cannot convey better title of the said property to the purchaser, "Siddalingaiah" ( claimant No. 1). Hence, the sale deed dated 08.07.1968 is not a valid 'sale deed' in the eyes of law, and the same is "void-ab-initio". It is stated that it is well known legal position that the fraud vitiates, every solemn act. Thus, based on such fraudulent documents, no person can claim the compensation awarded by the Government of Karnataka, against the acquisition of the schedule property. It is stated that though Siddalingaiah had created illegal sale deed and got his name entered into the RTC Extract by obtaining an illegal order, bearing RR No. 564/1984-85, in-respect of schedule property, the actual possession of the said land was with Muniswamy @ Muniswamappa and the claimant No. 2 and their family members, till the schedule property was acquired by the Government of Karnataka.
.10. It is stated that since, the deceased Muniswamy @ Muniswamappa being the elder member of the family was acting as kartha of the family of the 11 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 claimant No. 2 and he was managing the affairs of the said land and as such, the claimant No. 2 or any of his family members had no opportunity to know any change made in the khatha of the schedule property. For the first time, that is on 26.12.2012, when the notification bearing No. KE 181/2012 published, the claimant No. 2 and his family members learnt that, the claimant No. 1, has fraudulently, obtained the order bearing RR No. 564/1984-85 and got khatha of the said land changed in his name. Immediately thereafter the claimant No. 2 and his family members raised the protest by filing O.S.No. 683/2016 and RA (A) 293/2016-17. Hence, the claimant No. 1 cannot take advantage of adverse possession or delay and latches in taking steps to set right the illegal act committed by the claimant No. 1. Though the illegal act committed by the claimant No. 1, in the years 1968 and 1984-85, it remained buried in the files and not surfaced in any manner so that the family members of the claimant No. 2 could take any corrective action.
12
L.A.C. No. 311/2019 .11. It is stated that on 14.07.2016 a suit was filed by the claimant No. 2 and 8 others of his family members, against the claimant No. 1 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal bearing O.S.No. 683/2016 seeking declaration that claimant No. 2 and his 8 other family members are the absolute owners and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 2016, the claimant No. 2 and 8 others of his family members have filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, before the Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub Division, Bengaluru bearing No. R.A. (A) No. 293/2016-17, with a prayer to set aside the RR No. 564/1984-85. The Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub - division, was pleased to allow the RA (A) 293/2016-17 and set aside the RR No. 564/1984-85 by his order dated 04.09.2018. It is stated that on 08.09.2018 the O.S.No. 683/2016, was withdrawn as not pressed for and thereafter on the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in RA (A) No. 293/2016-17 13 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 dated 04.09.2018, the claimant No. 2 approached to the respondent to receive the compensation granted for acquiring the schedule property. It is stated that the claimant No. 1 to stop the claimant No. 2 from claiming the compensation has filed the Revision Petition u/s 136 (3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, on 01.10.2018, against the order dated 04.09.2018 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru bearing Revision Petition No. 251/2018. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the Revision Petition No. 251/2018, by its order dated 16.10.2019 and set aside the order of the Asst. Commissioner. It is stated that the claimant No. 2 and his 8 other family members filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka bearing W.P. No. 4561/2020, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P. No. 251/2018 dated 16.10.2019. The Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 13.01.2022, was pleased to dispose the W.P. No. 4561/2020 with the direction to this Court to decide the title of the schedule property as 14 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 contemplated under Section 30 of the L.A. Act and accordingly pay the compensation deposited in this Court.
.12. The claimants 5 to 12 have filed memo for adoption of claim statement of claimant No. 2.
.13. In order to prove their case, the claimant No.1 is examined as PW.1. The claimant No. 2 is examined as PW.2. One Eshwaraiah is examined as PW.3. One B.K. Chandrashekara is examined as PW.4. The documents got marked at Ex.P.1 to R.63.
.14. Heard the arguments. Written arguments filed by claimant No. 2, 5 to 11.
.15. The following points that would arise for my consideration are:
(1) Which of the Claimants are entitled to receive the compensation amount awarded to the acquired land deposited in this reference?
(2) What order or award?
.16. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : As per discussion 15 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .17. POINT No.1: The claimants 2, 5 to 11 have challenged the revenue entries standing in the name of claimant No. 1 by filing appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(A)293/2016-17 to set aside RR No. 564/1984-85. The AC had allowed the said appeal.
.18. The claimant No. 1 had challenged the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the A.C., in-respect of Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas. The Deputy Commissioner has allowed the Revision Petition and the order passed by the respondent No. 1 i.e., Asst. Commissioner dated 04.09.2018 is set aside. Further the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk is directed to effect the mutation and transfer the khatha in the name of petitioner in-respect of the property in Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas situated at Rajapura village, 16 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. Ex.P.9 is the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District.
.19. The claimants 2 to 11 have challenged the said order of Deputy Commissioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 4561/2020. The Hon'ble High Court disposed off writ petition directing the petitioners and respondent No. 6 herein to appear before the reference Court, where the respondent No. 5 has deposited the compensation amount. The reference Court shall decide the title of the land in question and thereafter decide who is entitled for receipt of the compensation. It is further directed that the reference Court shall not be swayed by the entries in the revenue records. The rights of the parties are required to be decided on the strength of the registered documents and not by the revenue entries.
.20. The claimant No. 1 P. Siddalingaiah has been examined as PW.1. He has stated that he is the absolute owner in possession of the landed property bearing Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas of 17 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 08.07.1968 from his vendor. To corroborate his contention, he has produced sale deed dated 08.07.1968 as per Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1(a) is the typed copy of Ex.P.1. From the said document, it is seen that the claimant No. 1 has purchased Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas from Chikkanna S/o Shambhanna.
PW.1 has produced sale deed of his vendor as per Ex.P.8. From Ex.P.8, it is seen that Chikkanna S/o Shambhanna has purchased Sy.No. 30 measuring 1 acre from Munishami S/o Chikkamunira.
.21. PW.2 has stated that on seeking the name of Siddalingaiah in the notification for acquisition, he was shocked and obtained revenue records. He realized that his uncle Muniswamy had sold Sy.No. 30 measuring 1 acre to Chikkanna S/o Shambanna. The said Chikkanna and siddalingaiah in collusion to grab their property had fraudulently created sale deed dated 08.07.1968 in-favour of Siddalingaiah and conveyed 1 18 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 acre 2 guntas of land in Sy.No. 223/4. It is stated that when the vendor Chikkanna had no manner of right, title and interest in Sy.No. 223/4 he cannot convey better title of the same to purchaser claimant No.1. So, sale deed dated 08.07.1968 is not valid.
.22. Advocate for claimant No. 2 has contended that the sale deed dated 25.07.1961 as per Ex.P.8 bearing registration No.1404/61-62 contents of the same are as under:
I) Executed by : Munishami S/o Chikkamunira
ii) in-favour of Chikkanna S/o Shambhanna iii) Sy.No. 30 Iv) measuring 1 acre
v) Assessment Rs. 2 - 50 paise
vi) Consideration Rs. 300/-
vii) Boundaries:
East by : Toti Inam land West by : Kariyana Holla North by : Munigana Holla and South by : Muninanjappana Holla 19 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 .23. The advocate for claimant No. 2 has contended that the sale deed dated 08.07.1968 as per Ex.P.1 bearing registration No.1290/68-69 contents of the same are as under:
i) Executed by : Chikkanna S/o Shambhanna
ii) in-favour of : P. Siddalingaiah S/o Putta Shammaiah
iii) Sy.No. 223/4
iv) measuring 1 acre 2 guntas
v) Assessment Rs. 1 - 55 paise
vi) Consideration Rs. 200/-
vii) Boundaries:
East by : Toti Inam land West by : Kariyana Holla North by : Munigana Holla and South by : Muninanjappana Holla .24. It is contended that under Ex.P.8 Chikkanna S/o Shambhanna had purchased the land bearing Sy.No. 30 measuring 1 acre having assessment value of Rs. 1 - 55 paise. However, under Ex.P.1 sale deed dated 08.07.1968, Chikkanna S/o Shambhanna had sold the 20 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 land bearing Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas in-favour of claimant No. 1 P. Siddalingaiah, having assessment value of Rs.2/-. Except the boundaries, there is no similarity about description of the property mentioned in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.8. It is argued that both documents i.e., Ex.P.1 and 8 are bad and defective for the reason that Muniswamy has no absolute right to sell the schedule property as the said property is the joint family property of claimant No. 2, 5 to 12. Though the claimants 2, 5 to 12 contend that the said property is the joint family property, they have not placed any documents to show that it is the joint family property and so, they have right over the said property.
.25. It is argued by the claimant No. 2 and 5 to 12 that once Ex.P.8 is registered it becomes final and the defects crept in cannot be mutually cured without following the due procedure of law.
.26. The counsel for claimants 2, 5 to 11 has relied upon the decision reported in (2011)4 MLJ 744, wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court had held that 21 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 the principle that the boundaries prevail over the extent, in my considered opinion, shall not construe boundaries prevail over the survey number.
.27. In the above case, there was dispute with regard to the extent. The Court held that description of property could not be held to be bad for want of certainty. The substantial question of law was held to the effect that boundaries will prevail over extent.
.28. The counsel for the claimant No. 1 has relied upon the decision reported in (2006) 5 SCC 466 (Subhaga and others Vs. Shobha and others), wherein, it is held that:
"Once a property has been identified by boundaries, even if there is any discrepancy normally, the boundaries should prevail."
In SA No.648 of 1999 (Samayana Thevar Vs. Abdul Razack), wherein the Madra High Court after considering various decisions has held that:
"It is settled principle of law that if there is any dispute in-respect of survey 22 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 number and extent, the boundaries only prevail over extent and survey number."
.29. It is stated that in Ex.P.1 thumb impression of Muniswamy has been obtained as witness, in all together different ink, in a suspicious manner. No satisfactory explanation has been given by claimant No. 1, in his cross-examination. He unable to explain the reasons for change in the colour of the ink. The counsel for the claimant No. 2, 5 to 11 has contended that while taking signature of Muniswamy on Ex.P.1, as witness without having any kind of recitals, the defect in the Ex.P.8 cannot be cured. The fact that Muniswamy has affixed LTM as witness means that he is aware of the execution of Ex.P.1 between claimant No. 1 and his vendor Chikkanna.
.30. The counsel for the claimant No. 1 has relied upon the decision of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in W.P. No. 24871/2018. At para No. 7 it has been held that:
23
L.A.C. No. 311/2019 " When there is discrepancy between extent and boundaries in any sale deed, the boundaries would prevail. Even though the extent of the property purchased under sale deed dated 13.05.1959 is shown as 1.15 acre, while the area of the suit property is only 3 guntas. The boundaries of property purchased under the said sale deed and the boundaries of the suit property would tally, as, rightly observed by the trial Court. Even then, the trial Court lost sight of above said principle of law and proceeded to observe that since the extent of the suit property and the extent of the property purchased under the sale deed are different, the defendants cannot succeed". In the same paragraph, the Court has held that "the boundaries shown in the sale deed tally with the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule, it is clear that the suit property is nothing but the property purchased by the father of the defendant from the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs in the year 1959".
.31. The counsel for the claimant No. 1 has relied upon the decision reported in (2006) 5 SCC 466, wherein, it is held that:
" That a property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description is well established. Here the attempt had been to identify 24 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 the suit property with reference to the boundaries and the commissioner has identified that the property with reference to such boundaries. Even if there was any discrepancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail."
.32. Muniswamy S/o Chikkamunira had sold Sy.No. 30 to Chikkanna as per Ex.P.8. Chikkanna had sold Sy.No. 223/4 in-favour of claimant No. 1. It is not the case of claimants 2, 5 to 11 that Muniswamy was owner of Sy.No. 30 and 223/4; that Chikkanna though purchased Sy.No. 30 retained it and had sold Sy.No. 223/4.
.33. PW.1 has stated that subsequent to the purchase, the claimant No.1 is in un-interrupt possession and enjoyment of the same. To corroborate his contention, the claimant No. 1 has produced RR as per Ex.P.2. From Ex.P.2 at Sl. No. 564, it is seen that:
"ಮಮನಸಸಸಮ ತತದದ ಚಕಕಮಮನವವರ ಇತದ ಚಕಕಣಣ ತತದದ ಶತಬಣಣ ರಸಜಸಪಪರ ಇವರತದ ಪ. ಸದದಲತಗಯಯ ತತದದ ಪಪಟಟಸಸಸಮಯಯ ರಸಜಸಪಪರ ಇವರಗದ ಕಕಯ ರರ. 200-D No.1290/68-69 Dt: 08.07.1968. " 25
L.A.C. No. 311/2019 .34. It is argued by claimant No. 2 Advocate that the transaction is between Chikkanna S/o Shambanna and Siddalingaiah and not as indicates in Ex.P.2. It is stated that under Ex.P.8 late. Muniswamy had not given the possession to Chikkanna. It is for this reason 7 long years from 1961 to 1968 there was no change of khatha in the name of Chikkanna.
.35. In KLJ 1980(1) page 419 Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka, our Hon'ble High Court has held that:
"U/s 128(1) of Land Revenue Act in case of acquisition of right under a registered document required to be entered in ROR and register of mutation, the person acquiring the right under such document need not make a report and it is incumbent upon the registering authority to make a report of the acquisition of the right to the prescribed officer, who shall make a report of the acquisition of right to the prescribed officer who shall on receipt of such report, enter in the register of mutation every such report made to him. That being so, the failure on the part of prescribed officer to make entries cannot jeopardized the right acquired under registered document.
The above decision applies to the case on hand. 26
L.A.C. No. 311/2019 .36. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.8 are the same, though survey number and extent differs. In view of the above decision it could be held that boundaries prevail over survey number and extent. The property purchased by claimant No. 1 is nothing but the property sold by Muniswamy S/o Chikkamunira. So, the claimant No. 1 can be held to have title over the property.
.37. PW.1 has stated that since the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. To corroborate his contention, he has produced tax paid receipts as per Ex.P.3. From Ex.P.3, It is seen that tax has been paid on 24.07.2022. The land has been acquired in the year 2012. Once the property acquired by the Government even if tax paid, it will not enure to the benefits of claimant No. 1. Ex.P.4 is the Form No.15. It discloses that sale made by Muniswamy in-favour of Chikkanna in-respect of Sy.No. 30 to an extent of 1 acre on 25.07.1961 and the sale made by Chikkanna in-favour of P. Siddalingaiah in-respect of 27 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Sy.No. 223/4 to an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas. It also discloses that other sales in-respect of Sy.No. 30 which are not relevant for the purpose of this case.
.38. Ex.P.5 to 7 are the Encumbrance certificates which discloses that there has been nil transaction from 01.04.1970 to 19.02.2022.
.39. Ex.P.10 is the RTC Extracts (29 in numbers) for the period from 1969-70 to 2021-22. The RTC Extracts for the period from 1969 to 1980, name of Muniswamy S/o Chikka Muneera has been entered in Col. No. 9 and khatha number is mentioned as 89 and at Col. No. 12(2) name of P. Siddalingaiah i.e., claimant No. 1 is mentioned for these years. In the RTC Extracts for the period from 1979-80 onwards name of Muniswamy S/o Chikka Muneera has been rounded off, name of P. Siddalingaiah entered in Col. No. 9. In Col. No. 12(2) name of P. Siddalingaiah has been continued, for the year 1990 onwards till 2021 name of P. Siddalingaiah has been entered in Col. No.12(2) and in Col. No.9.28
L.A.C. No. 311/2019 .40. The claimant No. 2 advocate has pointed out the assessment amount of the land in Sy.No. 223/4 in Ex.P.13 dated 25.06.1957 and in RTC Extracts from 1969-70 to 1983-84, at Ex.P.10, the assessment amount was Rs. 2/-, during which period the name of Muniswamy was mentioned in owner's column No. 9 of the RTC Extract. However, the revenue authorities while removing the name of Muniswamy from owners column No. 9 of the RTC Extracts and replacing it with the name of P. Siddalingaiah - claimant No. 1 have also reduced the assessment value from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 1 - 55 paise, which is just to help P. Siddalingaiah, as in his sale deed at Ex.P.1, he has mentioned assessment of schedule property as Rs. 1 - 55 paise. It is stated that the revenue authorities cannot change the assessment value from Rs. 2/- to rs.1-55 paise without any order to that effect from the Deputy Commissioner. It is contended that P. Siddalingaiah was having great influence over the revenue authorities and by using his 29 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 position, he has managed to create documents. So, these documents do not have any evidentiary value.
.41. In AIR 1997 SC 2719 (Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh and others), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
" Mutation of property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value in title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question."
In view of the above decision even though the revenue entries have not been properly done it does not extinguish the title of claimant No. 1.
.42. The claimant No. 2 has been examined as PW.2. he has stated that he along with 8 others of their joint family members are the absolute owners of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas situated at Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. PW.2 has stated that initially the property bearing Sy.No. 223/4 was owned by his grand father, Shakyamuni, who was personally cultivating the 30 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 same by growing ragi, Avare etc., for his livelihood and his grand father Chikka Munira and his legal wedded wife namely Muniveeramma @ Aduramma, had 3 children namely (1) Muniswamy @ Muniswamappa; (2) Puttappa and (3) Chinnappa @ Chikkaputtappa. After the demise of Chikkamunira, his children i.e., (1) Muniswamy; (2) Puttappa and (3) Chinnapa were cultivating the said land. However, his uncle Muniswamy being the eldest son of Chikkamunira, his name was mutated in the revenue records, such as, record of rights, RTC, Hissa survey etc. PW.2 has stated that his elder uncle Muniswamy remained bachelor and issue less throughout his life. However, his father Puttappa had got 2 children. Similarly, his another uncle Chinnappa @ Chikkaputtappa had got 5 children. All of them are the legal heirs of Chikkamunira, and also being the legal heirs of Muniswamy, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as the absolute owners thereof. PW.2 has stated that in the revenue records the name of owner of Sy.No. 223/4 is 31 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 shown as Muniswamy, who is none other than his elder uncle.
.43. PW.2 has stated that his elder uncle Muniswamy died on 06.04.2012. All the surviving legal heirs of Chikkamunira and Muniswamy @ Muniswamappa including him were in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No. 223/4 of Rajapura village. To corroborate his contention, he has relied upon Ex.P.10 to 21.
.44. Ex.P.12 and 13 are the survey Settlement and Land Records in-respect of Sy.No. 223. The name of Muniswamy S/o Chikkamunira has been mentioned in Ex.P.12. In Ex.P.13 at Sl. No. 4, name of Hissedhar Muniswamy S/o Chikkamunira extent 1-2 un-cultivable area 1-2, assessment 2 has been mentioned. Ex.P.14 and 15 are the Hissa Survey Tippani and Hissa Survey Atlas. Ex.P.16 is the record of rights. In Sl. No.497 Muniswamy S/o Chikkamunira, Sy.No. 223/4 has been mentioned. Ex.P.17 RPR, Sl. No.564 reflects the sale 32 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 made in-favour of claimant No. 1 in-respect of Sy.No. 223/4.
.45. Ex.P.18 to 22 are the RTC Extracts in- respect of Sy.No. 223/4. Ex.P.18 is the RTC for the period 1969-70 to 73-74. The name of Muniswamy S/o Chikkamunira is mentioned in Col. No. 9 and the name of P. Siddalingaiah is mentioned in Col. No. 12(2). Ex.P.19 and 20 are the RTC Extracts for the year 1974- 75 to 1988-89, in Col. No.9, the name of Muniswamy S/o Chikkamunira is rounded off and the name of Siddalingaiah has been mentioned. In Col. No. 12(2) the name of Siddalingaiah has been mentioned. Ex.P.21 is the Survey Settlement Akarbandh in-respect of Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas. Ex.P.22 is the RTC Extract for 1987 to 2022. The name of Siddalingaiah is mentioned at Col. No.9 and 12(2).
.46. The evidence of PW.2 is that they are legal heirs of " Chikkamunira". Ex.P.25 is the suit filed by claimant No. 2, 5 to 12 against claimant No. 1 and SLAO for declaration that they are the absolute owners 33 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 and in possession of suit schedule property. In the said suit, it is stated that Chikkamunira was the propositor of the family of plaintiff. Ex.P.26 is the written statement filed by claimant No. 1. PW.2 admits that the suit was withdrawn on 08.09.2018. He has stated that A.C. passed order in their favour and to get compensation amount case was withdrawn. He has stated that L.A.O. informed unless case is withdrawn compensation cannot be paid. He admits that he did not file application for restoration nor initiated any action against L.A.O. .47. Ex.P.29 is the death certificate of Muniswamy. As per the document, he died on 06.04.2012 and it has been registered on 18.04.2012. Till 2012 Muniswamy did not challenge the sale deed in- favour of claimant No. 1 nor his legal heirs challenged the same from the date of knowledge within the period of limitation.
.48. Ex.P.30 is the Genealogical tree of the family of Chikkamunira. The said Chikkamunira is 34 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 shown as propositor of claimant No. 2. Chikkamunira had 3 children namely (1) Muniswamy; (2) Puttappa and (3) Chinnappa. As per the document, the claimants 2 to 12 are the legal heirs of Chikkamunira. Ex.P.32 is the Genealogical tree issued by the Asst. Tahsildar, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. As per the document, Chikkamunira is the grand father. PW.2 admits that to obtain Ex.P.32, he had furnished Ex.P.33 to 50. He admits that Ex.P.32 Genealogical tree has been issued based on Ex.P.33 affidavit Genealogical tree sworn by him. PW.2 during cross-examination has stated that the report of the village accountant has been obtained with regard to relationship of his grand parents. The report of the village accountant has not been produced by him. PW.2 admits that in his father Puttappa's voter identity card Ex.P.38, his father's father name is mentioned as Chikkamunirappa. PW.2 denies that in Ex.P.39 death certificate of Puttappa, his father name Chikka has been inserted. When it is suggested to PW.2 that in Ex.P.39 his father name is mentioned as 35 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Muniveerappa. He has stated that elders are called as 'appa'. It is relevant to note that propositor of the family is known as Chikkamunira and not Chikkamuniveerappa.
.49. One B.K. Chandrashekar, Deputy Tahsildar, Jigani Hobli has been examined as PW.4. PW.4 has stated that Ex.P.32 has been given through on-line. He has stated that they do not issue survival certificate, but if Government servant expires, they issue survival certificate. The Genealogical tree is issued as per guidelines issued by the Circular Ex.P.58 to 61. He has produced the document furnished by PW.2 as per Ex.P.62. From PW.4, it is elicited that " ಚಕಕ ಮಮನವರ ಅವರಗದ ಸತಬತಧಪಟಟ ಸರಸರರ ಅಥವಸ ಖಸಸಗ ಅವರಮ ನವಡದತತಹ ಸದವವಸ ಗಮರಮತನ ಚವಟ ದನಸತಕ 06.06.1948 ದಸಖಲದ ನ ಪ 62 ರಲಲ ಇದದಯಸ ಎತದರದ ಸಸಕಯಮ ಆನ ಲದಲನಪಸರಸಯರಟಇರಮವಪದರತದ ದಸಖಲದ ರದರಟಟರಮವಪದಲಲ ".
.50. In Ex.P.32 at Sl. No.1 Chikkamunira relationship is shown as grand father with regard to the Aadhar card No./PAN Card No.APK Number. It is mentioned as ಸರಸರರ ಅಥವಸ ಖಸಸಗ ಸತಸದಸ ನವಡರಮವ ಸದವವಸ ಗಮರಮತನ 36 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 ಚವಟ 06.06.1948. It is clear that the said details is not based on any Government documents. On perusal of evidence of PW.2 and PW.4, it is clear that entry has been made based on the sworn affidavit filed by the PW.2.
.51. PW.4 has stated that PW.2 has clicked the date of death as 06.06.1948 and in this regard, he has not given any document. On the basis of affidavit, the Village Accountant will enquire and will submit report and the said report will be accepted by him. PW.4 has stated that the report has been given in the format. Except Chikkamunira, with regard to other persons mentioned in Ex.P.32 there are documents. With regard to Muniveeramma, PW.2 has obtained non-availability certificate and sworn by the affidavit. It is elicited that the relationship of applicants and Muniveerappa is based on self-sworn affidavit and there is no other document. He has stated that the village accountant has verified details furnished by the applicants. When the death certificate of Muniswamy is shown, PW.4 has 37 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 stated that the same will have to be verified in the office. He admits that in Ex.P.62 Puttappa's father name is mentioned as Chikkamuniveerappa, which is Xerox copy. He admits that in the death certificate of Puttappa, his father name is mentioned as Muniveerappa. The said document is marked as Ex.P.63. It is suggested that when the application is given the word 'Chikka' is inserted to Muniveerappa, PW.1 has pleaded ignorance about the said fact. This indicates that PW.2 has manipulated the records, while filing application to get Genealogical tree.
.52. PW.1 has stated that based on the report of the Sub-ordinate official, he has given Genealogical tree. From the evidence of PW.4 it is clear that the Genealogical tree produced by PW.2 to show that they are related to Munira based on sworn affidavit of PW.2. It is elicited from PW.4 that Mahazar is enclosed in Ex.P.62. On perusal of Ex.P.62, it is seen that in the mahazar, details of the person who has been enquired is not mentioned. Though the signatures of 4-5 persons 38 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 have been obtained, their address is not mentioned. The mahazar has not been done in accordance with law.
.53. One Eshwaraiah S/o late. Mantalappa. R/o Janatha colony, Hennagara post, Rajapura village has been examined as PW.3. He has reiterated the evidence of PW.2, to prove that claimant No. 2, 5 to 12 are the family members of Chikkamunira and they are the legal heirs of Chikkamunira and Muniswamy. During cross- examination, PW.3 has stated that his house is adjacent to the house of Veerabhadraiah (PW.2). In the voter list, after his house number, PW.2's house number is mentioned. To substantiate the same, no document is produced. The evidence of PW.3 discloses that he has not attended the wedding of children of Puttappa and Chinnappa. He admits that he has not produced the documents to show that he owned the property in Rajapura village and he is an agriculturist; that he has studied from 1st standard to 7th standard in Rajapura village, PW.3 has produced Ex.P.54 and 55 SSLC marks cards of PW.2 and PW.3. He admits that Ex.P.56 and 57 39 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 are the certificates. PW.2 has studied in the Government High School, Hennagara during 1997-98 as per Ex.P.57. PW.3 has studied in the Government High School, Hennagara during 1997-98 as per Ex.P.57. He admits in Ex.P.56 and 57 that the period he has studied in the Government High School has not been mentioned. From the evidence, it is clear that PW.2 and PW.3 are class-mates. Only on oral say without any document like attending function in the house of PW.2, voter list that is his house is adjacent to the house of PW.2 or in the same line. So, he has aware about the family relationship, it is difficult to say that PW.3 knows the relationship of PW.2 with Muniswamy and his father.
.54. From the evidence available on record it is seen that there is no document to show that Muniswamy S/o Chikkamunira is uncle of claimants 2, 5 to 11. In the death certificate of PW.2's father Puttappa, father of Puttappa has been tampered and Chikka has been inserted; father's name is mentioned as Chikka Muniveerappa, whereas, father of 40 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Muniswamy is Chikkamunira. Muniswamy S/o Chikkamunira has died in the year 2012. If really Muniswamy was residing with them as member of family, there would be voter list, which would have clearly establishes that the claimants are the legal heirs of Muniswamy S/o late. Chikkamunira. The materials before the Court are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that they are the legal heirs of Muniswamy S/o Chikkamunira.
.55. From the above discussion, it is clear that as boundaries in Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.1 are the same, it could be held that claimant No. 1 is the owner of the property. The records disclose that the claimant No. 1 has been in possession of the property. PW.2 in the writ petition has stated that claimant No. 1 is the tenant under Munishamy. Ex.P.52 is the writ petition No. 4561/2020 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In the said writ petition, in para No. 17, It is stated that " The 6th respondent who was a tenant under Munishamy had committed this fraudulent act in collusion with 41 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Chikkanna". The claimants 2, 5 to 11 have not produced any documents to show that claimant No. 1 was tenant under Munishamy. By the statement of claimants 2, 5 to 11 it is clear that claimant No. 1 is cultivating the land. Probably to over come possession of claimant No. 1, they had falsely pleaded that claimant No. 1 is a tenant under Munishamy. The said Munishamy S/o late. Chikkamunira was alive till 2012. During his life time he has not questioned the sale deed nor filed any suit against claimant No. 1. The signature of Munishamy is found in Ex.P.1. So, it cannot be said that he was not unaware about the transaction.
.56. Presumption in law is that possession goes with ownership person who otherwise asserts possession has to rebut the presumption. The claimants 2, 5 to 11 had not specifically denied the sale made by Muniswamy in-favour of Chikkanna as per Ex.P.8. By virtue of Ex.P.8 Chikkanna had been put in possession of property. He executed Ex.P.1 sale deed in-favour of claimant No. 1. the boundaries in Ex.P.1 42 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 and Ex.P.8 are same. By virtue of Ex.P.1 sale deed claimant has been put in possession. As per above discussion it is held that claimant No. 1 is owner. The claimants 2, 5 to 11 have not placed cogent evidence with regard to their possession and they failed to rebut presumption in-favour of claimant No. 1. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I hold that the claimant No. 1 is the owner and he is entitled for compensation to an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy.No. 223/4 of Rajapura village. The claim of claimants 2, 5 to 11 in dismissed. The claimants 3 and 4 did not file claim statement, so their claim is rejected. Hence, I answer point No. 1 partly in the affirmative.
.57. POINT NO.2: In view of my finding on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The reference made by the respondent/SLAO under Section 77(1) of the Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, 43 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 is hereby partly allowed.
The claimant No.1 - Sri. P. Siddalingaiah is entitle for compensation in-respect of Sy.No. 223/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk along with accrued interest thereon.
Claimant No.1 shall has to execute
indemnity bond with one surety,
undertaking to re-deposit the
compensation amount either in this court or in any other court, if ordered to do so, which amount he is going to receive in this case.
The claimant No. 1 is entitled to interest under Section 34 of L.A. Act. The amount already paid by L.A.O., has to be deducted.
The reference made by the respondent in-respect of claimants 2 to 12 is hereby rejected.44
L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 20th day of August, 2021.) (Sheila B.M.) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 P. Siddalingaiah PW.2 Veerabhadraiah @ Kumar PW.3 Eshwaraiah PW.4 B.K. Chandrashekar
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS:
Ex.P.1 & 1(a) Sale deed dated 08.07.1961 and typed copy Ex.P.2 & 2(a) RR extract and typed copy Ex.P.3 Tax receipt Ex.P.4 to 7 Encumbrances Ex.P.8 & 8(a) Sale deed dated 25.07.1961 and typed copy Ex.P.9 Revision petition No. 251/2018 Ex.P.10 RTCs ( 29 in numbers) Ex.P.11 Adhar card Ex.P.12 Survey settlement and land records Ex.P.13 Hissa survey Pakka book Ex.P.14 Hissa Survey Tippani book 45 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Ex.P.15 Hissa survey Atlas Ex.P.16 & 16(a) RR and relevant entry is at Sl. No. 497 Ex.P.17 & 17(a) RR and relevant entry is at Sl. No. 564 Ex.P.18 to 20 RTCs Ex.P.21 Settlement Aakarbandh Ex.P.22 RTC Extracts from 1984 to 2022 (25 in numbers) Ex.P.23 Order in R.A. (A) No. 293/2016-17 dated 04.09.2018 passed by the A.C. Bengaluru South Ex.P.24 to 26 Order sheet, plaint and written statement in O.S.No. 683/2016 Ex.P.27 Order in RP No. 251/2018 Ex.P.28 Record of rights Ex.P.29 Death certificate of Muniswamy Ex.P.30 Genealogical tree Ex.P.31 Order in W.P. No. 4561/2020 Ex.P.32 Genealogical tree along with receipt Ex.P.33 Genealogical tree affidavit (2 pages) Ex.P.34 & 35 Certificates Ex.P.36 & 37 Certificates Ex.P.38 Aadhar card of Puttappa Ex.P.39 Death certificate of Puttappa Ex.P.40 Aadhar card of Mariyamma Ex.P.41 Aadhar card of Lakshmamma Ex.P.42 Aadhar card of choodappa Ex.P.43 Aadhar card of Susheela Ex.P.44 Aadhar card of Vishalakshi 46 L.A.C. No. 311/2019 Ex.P.45 Aadhar card of Veerabhadraiah Ex.P.46 Aadhar card of Shruthi Ex.P.47 Case description (3 pages) Ex.P.48 Aadhar card No. 565661330255 (illegible copy) Ex.P.49 Aadhar card No. 75693192256 of Ajay Ex.P.50 Statement of Veerabhadraiah Ex.P.52 Letter dated 13.07.2022 Ex.P.53 Aadhar card of PW.3 Ex.P.54 SSLC marks card of PW.3 Ex.P.55 SSLC marks card of PW.2 Ex.P.56 & 57 Certificates Ex.P.58 to 61 Circulars Ex.P.62 Files filed by Deputy Tahsildar, Jigani Ex.P.63 Death certificate of Puttappa
3. WITNESSES EXAMI NED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Nil (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge Bangalore.
47 L.A.C. No. 311/2019