Bangalore District Court
Sri. A.H. Manjunath vs Smt. Vijayalakshmi Patil on 1 February, 2023
KABC010221052016
IN THE COURT OF THE VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.No.19)
Dated: This the 1 st day of February, 2023.
PRESENT
SMT.S.G.SUNITHA, B.Sc., LLB.,
VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.6826/2016
Plaintiffs : 1. Sri. A.H. Manjunath
S/o Sri. A.T.Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Presently r/at No.587/70,
4th Main, Anjaneya Layout,
Davanagere - 577 004.
2. Smt. A.M. Nanditha
D/o Sri. A.H.Manjunath,
Aged about 28 years,
Presently r/at No.587/70,
4th Main, Anjaneya Layout,
Davanagere - 577 004.
3. Sri. Nandan M Arekal
S/o Sri. A.H.Manjunath,
Aged about 20 years,
Presently r/at No.587/70,
4th Main, Anjaneya Layout,
Davanagere - 577 004.
(By Sri.K.N. Phanindra., Advocate)
2
OS.NO.6826/2016
V/S
Defendants : 1. Smt. Vijayalakshmi Patil
W/o Sri. Chandrashekar Patil,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o No.G2, 'Sri Shankara Mansion',
N-23, L.G. Halli, Dollars Colony,
RMV 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560 094.
2. Sri. Deveeda Raj @ David C
S/o Late Sri. D. Chowrappa,
Aged about 63 years,
R/o Mariyannana Palya,
Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
3. Smt. Reena Lethisiya
D/o Sri. Daveeda Raj @ David C,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o Mariyannana Palya,
Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
4. Sri. Denzi Lawrance
S/o Sri. Daveeda Raj @ David C,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o Mariyannana Palya,
Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
Defendant No.2 to 4 are also at
C/o 'D Souza Manor',
No.215/2 'D' Block,
Sahakara Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 092.
(By Sri.A.N. Anand., Advocate)
3
OS.NO.6826/2016
Date of institution of suit 22-09-2016
Nature of the suit Declaration and Injunction
Date of commencement of 07-09-2017
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment was 01-02-2023
pronounced
Days Months Years
21 07 06
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendants for a judgment and decree, declaring that the plaintiffs are the lawful and absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
For a judgment and decree of perceptual/permanent injunction, restraining the defendants either by themselves or through their agents, workmen, or anyone claiming through them etc., from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Consequently, for a judgment and decree, declaring that the alleged sale deed dated 07.06.2013 executed by the defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the land measuring 3 acres in Sy No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bengaluru North Taluk is not binding upon the plaintiffs and award cost of the proceeding in the interest of justice and equity.
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY 4 OS.NO.6826/2016 All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site bearing No.784 measuring East to West 60 ft. (18.28 mtrs) and North to South 40 ft. (12.19 mtrs) in all totally measuring 2400 sq. ft. (222.83 sq. mtrs) carved out in Sy Nos.24/5, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 25, 26/1, 2, 3B, 33/1, 34/1, 2, 35/1, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 37/2, 3, 6, 38/1, 48/1B, 49/3, 50/4, 51/2, 52/1, 76/3A, 3B, 77/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 78/2, 79, 81/1 (Part), 85/8, 86, 87/1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 87/3, 4 and 88/5, situated at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the layout formed the Vyalikaval Housing Building Co-operative Society Ltd., bounded on;
East by : Road
West by : Site bearing No.775
North by : Site bearing No.785
South by : Site bearing No.783
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case is as follows;
The 1st plaintiff is the husband of Late Smt. A.A. Manjula & the 2nd & 3rd plaintiffs are the daughter and son of Late Smt.A.A.Manjula. The wife of the 1st plaintiff & the mother of the 2nd & 3rd, plaintiffs, i.e., Late Smt. A.A.Manjula, had under a registered sale deed dated 01/07/2005, purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.784, measuring East to West 60 Feet and North to South 40 Feet and thereby totally measuring 2400 Square Feet in the layout formed by "Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd.' in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk, morefully described in the Schedule hereunder and hereinafter called as the 5 OS.NO.6826/2016 'Suit Schedule Property'. The aforesaid site had been purchased under the registered sale deed dated 01/07/2005 from one Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. The said Late Smt. A.A.Manjula had been put in possession of the Suit Schedule Property under the terms of he registered sale deed / registered document and continued to be in possession of the said Suit Schedule Property. The Bangalore Development Authority under the Order dated 25/07/2005 bearing No.BDA/RON/C3/784/05-06 issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Suit Schedule Property in favour of Late Smt. A.A.Manjula. Subsequently, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the Order dated 25/03/2009 bearing No.27/0809 has also issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Suit Schedule Property in favour of Late Smt. A.A.Manjula. The plaintiffs have also been paying the property taxes in respect of the Suit Schedule Property and continue to remain in possession of the same. Smt. A.A.Manjula (wife of 1st plaintiff and mother of 2nd & 3rd plaintiffs) expired on 29/01/2013 leaving behind her husband and 2 children as her only legal representatives, who are the plaintiffs in the above suit. The Deputy Tahsildar, Hosadurga Taluk has also issued the Certificate dated 08/12/2015, certifying that the plaintiffs are the only living family members of Late Smt. A.A.Manjula. After the death of his wife, the 1st plaintiff managing and looking after the Suit Schedule Property and the plaintiffs have continued to remain in possession of the Suit Schedule Property. The residential site is vacant and the plaintiffs have not put up any structure in and over the same. Sri. G.Prasad Reddy (vendor of Smt.A.A.Manjula) had in turn 6 OS.NO.6826/2016 purchased the Suit Schedule Property" for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. The said Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had put the said Sri. G.Prasad Reddy in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and had also issued the Possession Certificate dated 05/04/2004. The Khata in respect of the Suit Schedule Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority vide its Order bearing Sl.No.BDA/RON/C3/784/2004-05 dated 10/06/2004 in favour of Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had passed the resolution dated 12/09/2003 approving the Layout plan submitted by Vyalikavai House Building Co-Operative Society Limited in respect of Land measuring 98 acres 21 guntas in Nagavara village. Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara village is a part of the said approved layout plan & the Suit Schedule Property, i.e., Site No.784 is comprised within the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, as could be clearly seen from the approved layout plan. Pursuant to the purchase of the residential site / Suit Schedule Property by Late Smt. A.A.Manjula under the Registered Sale Deed, she had been put in possession of the same and continued to remain in possession till her death. Subsequently, the plaintiffs herein being the only legal representatives of Late Smt.A.A.Manjula have continued to remain in possession of the Suit Schedule Property though the Khata continues to remain in the name of Late Smt. A.A.Manjula. The plaintiffs are also paying property tax in respect of the said site. Such being the facts, to the 7 OS.NO.6826/2016 utter shock and surprise of the plaintiffs, on 04/07/2015, the defendant No.1 along with her agents, henchmen and workers, numbering more than 50 in number had all of a sudden swooped down on the site/Suit Schedule Property belonging to the plaintiffs and started to proclaim that she was the owner of the entire land comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. The defendant No.1 and her group of persons were provided with police protection and assistance by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore and the Station House Officer, K. G. Halli Police Station. The defendant No.1 with her agents and henchmen had carried out demolition of the compound walls of several other adjacent site owners. The defendant No.1 attempted to take over the possession of the Suit Schedule Property from the plaintiffs but the same was ably resisted though the defendant No.1 had the active support of Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore and the Station House Officer, K. G. Halli Police Station, who had been directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District to provide police protection. The plaintiffs and several other site owners in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village immediately approached the Station House Officer of K.G. Halli Police Station and sought their protection in the matter and submitted a complaint in writing. Unfortunately, the Station House Officer of K.G. Halli Police Station refused to receive the complaint and intimated to the plaintiffs and others that he had received instructions from the Deputy Commissioner of Police as well as the Deputy Commissioner to 8 OS.NO.6826/2016 provide police protection to the defendant No.1 to put up the compound wall around the property measuring 3 Acres in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. To the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiffs and several other adjacent site owners, filed complaint dated 04.07.2015 before Station House Officer, K.G.Halli Police Station, wherein, the defenda No.1 has claimed to have purchased an extent of 3 Acres of land in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk under a sale deed dated 07/03/2013 from defendant Nos.2 to 4 herein. The plaintiffs have also secured the copy petition dated 22/06/2015 filed by the defendant No.1 before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore, seeking for police protection to put up a compound wall in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. In the said petition dated 22/06/2015, the defendant No.1 had referred to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in respect of the very same land, i.e., Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, directing the police authorities to provide police protection for erecting the compound wall. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs immediately made enquiries and obtained from the owners of the adjacent sites, the copy of the Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. It was shocking to observe that the Deputy Commissioner without even looking into the records, had accepted the claim of some stranger by name Sri. Arifullah Sheriff that the land acquisition in respect of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village had been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme 9 OS.NO.6826/2016 Court of India and that the land had to be restored in favour of the original land owners. The Deputy Commissioner has under the said order dated 13/06/2014, directed the police authorities to provide police protection to the said person to erect compound wall. Under such circumstances, the 1st plaintiff herein along with several other owners of adjacent sites located in land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, had filed Writ Petitions bearing W.P.Nos.29139143/2015 on 13/07/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, challenging the Order dated 13/06/2014 that had been Bangalore passed by the Deputy Commissioner, consequential reliefs. The 1st plaintiff herein was the 4th writ petitioner in W.P.No.29139-143/2015. The defendant No.1 herein had been impleaded as the 5th respondent in W.P.No.29139-143/2015. The learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had issued the Notice to the respondents therein and had also granted an interim order dated 16/07/2015 in W.P.No.2913929143/2015, staying the operation of the Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and had also directed the defendant No.1 herein (5th respondent therein) not to interfere with the plaintiffs (petitioner No.4 therein along with others) peaceful possession and enjoyment over the site bearing No.784 (Suit Schedule Property herein) and other sites, formed in land bearing Sy. No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk.
Further submitted that, ultimately, the said W.P.No.29139- 29143/2015 had been connected to W.P.No.28388-28401/2015 10 OS.NO.6826/2016 and was finally heard by the learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the said Writ Petitions came to be allowed by the Final Order dated 19/07/2016 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Bangalore reserving liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Para 5 of the said Final Order dated 19/07/2016 also observed that the aggrieved party has to approach a civil court for appropriate reliefs and in the said case, the party concerned has to seek a direction for police protection. On the basis of the order of the civil court, the official respondent can consider grant of police protection. In terms of the Final Order dated passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.2913929143/2015, the plaintiffs have thus approached this Court by filing the present suit seeking for declaration of title and such other consequential and appropriate reliefs due to the illegal and high handed actions on the part of the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have continued to remain in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and their possession was also protected by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the interim Order dated 16/07/2015 passed in W.P.No.29139-29143/2015, whereby the defendant No.1 had been restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property, i.e., residential site No.784 comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village in Bangalore North Taluk. The plaintiffs are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule 11 OS.NO.6826/2016 Property. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 is not in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and has been trying to interfere with plaintiffs possession and is attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property. The very fact that the defendant No.1 had approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, Bangalore under the petition dated 22/06/2015 seeking police protection to put up the compound wall in and over land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, would clearly reveal that the defendant No.1 is not in possession of the said property. The Order dated 13/06/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore has also been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.29139-29143/2015. Therefore, the defendant No.1 cannot interfere with plaintiffs possession in and over the Suit Schedule Property nor can the defendant No.1 dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property. It is a well settled proposition of Law that a person in possession of a land (be it even a trespasser) cannot be dispossessed except in due course of Law. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are in possession of the residential site bearing 784, i.e., Suit Schedule Property from 01/07/2005 onwards by virtue of a registered sale deed and the vendor of the plaintiffs had been put in possession of the very same Suit Schedule Property on 05/04/2004 under a Possession Certificate and registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 executed by Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. The defendant No.1 claims to have purchased an extent of 3 Acres of land in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village under the Sale Deed dated 12 OS.NO.6826/2016 07/03/2013 executed by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 who allegedly claim to be the son and grandchildren respectively of one Sri.D.Chowrappa, S/o Sri. Daveedappa. The said Sri. Daveedappa claimed to be the son of one Sri. Aryogyappa, the original land owner of land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. The said persons, i.e., defendant Nos. 2 to 4 could have never executed the sale deed in respect of the said lands since the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village to an extent of 6 Acres 36 Guntas had been acquired under the Final Notification dated 21/02/1986 issued under Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & the defendant Nos.2 to 4 had never challenged the acquisition proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The defendant No.1 could also not have been put in possession of the said land since the plaintiffs were already in possession of the same since the entire extent of land in Sy.No.49/3 had been acquired on 21/02/1986. Further, the very sale deed dated 07/03/2013 executed in favour of the defendant No.1 is a document that is 'Void Ab-initio since the land in question, i.e., Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village had been acquired by the State Government in favour of Vyalikaval Hous Building Co- Operative Society Limited by the Final Notification date 21/02/1986 issued under Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Further, the Bangalore Development Authority has approved the layout plan in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited as far back as on 12/09/2003. Thus, the said sale deed dated 07/03/2013 executed in favour of the defendant No.1 is not 13 OS.NO.6826/2016 binding upon the plaintiffs since the persons executing the said sale deed to the defendant No.1, admittedly, did not have right, title or interest in and over land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village as on that date since their title had been extinguished due to acquisition of land by the State Government. Moreover, the alleged sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.1 is much later in point of time compared to the sale deed executed in favour of Late Smt. A.A.Manjula, the wife of the 1st plaintiff herein and the mother of plaintiff Nos.2 & 3.
Facts relating to land acquisition of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bengaluru North Taluk The State Government had originally initiated acquisition proceeding in 1984 under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire lands in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. (VHBC). One acquisition proceedings was for around 428 acres of land comprised in Devarachikkanahalli, Kodichikkanahalli & other villages in Bangalore South Taluk. The other acquisition proceeding was to an extent of about 164 acres in Nagavara Village in Bangalore North Taluk. The State Government issued the Final Notification on 21/02/1986 published in the Gazette on 24/02/1986 under Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring an extent of about 164 Acres of land comprised in various survey numbers in Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk. It is relevant to state that the bearing Sy.No.49/3 measuring to an extent of 6 Acres 36 Guntas was acquired under the aforesaid Notification dated 14 OS.NO.6826/2016 21/02/1986 and the same is found at SI.No.43 of the said Notification. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had also issued the Notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the gazette on 05/05/1988 intimating that the lands comprised in various survey numbers in Nagawara village had been taken possession for the purpose of M/s. Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. The land bearing Sy.No.49/3 is mentioned at Sl.No.34 of the said Notification dated 05/05/1988. The acquisition proceedings in respect of Devarachikkanahalli, Kodichikkanahalli & other villages in Bangalore South Taluk in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. were challenged by Narayana Reddy and others & the entire acquisition of lands was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide judgment reported in ILR 1991 (3) KAR 2248 (Narayana Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka). The said judgment was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment dated 21/02/1995, reported in 1995 (3) SCC 128 (Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs. Narayana Reddy and others). It is relevant to submit that the acquisition in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village was not involved in the aforementioned judgments. In the meanwhile, one Sri. R. Jojappa and his sons, by names, Sri. J.Burnad & Sri. J.Sandyagappa claiming to be the owners of land measuring to an extent of 1 Acre 26 Guntas comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village had filed a Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.9815/1994 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the acquisition 15 OS.NO.6826/2016 notification dated 21/02/1986 to that extent of land only. The said W.P.No.9815/1994 had been connected W.P.No.6421-28/1994 & connected matters. The Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had passed the Final Order dated 18/02/1997 in the aforesaid Writ Petitions and while setting aside the acquisition proceedings impugned therein, has categorically held at Para 6 of the order that the acquisition notifications are quashed only in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners therein. The acquisition proceedings relating to an extent of land comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village, allegedly belonging to David Raj @ David, S/o. D. Chowrappa, had never been questioned in any Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The above facts would become much clearer and specific upon the perusal of the Sec.6(1) Acquisition Notification dated 21/02/1986. The land bearing Sy.No.49/3 has been notified at SI.No.43 therein to an extent of 6 Acres 36 Guntas and 14 Guntas of Kharab. At Column No.3 of the said Notification pertaining to 'Anubhavadar', the name of 'Jojappa' has been shown. Therefore, the acquisition of land in Sy.No.49/3 had been set aside under the order dated 18/02/1997 passed in W.P.No.9815/1994 only in so far as the extent of land belonging to Jojappa and the extent allegedly belonging to David Raj was never involved in the said Writ Petition. Similarly, a few other persons had challenged the acquisition proceedings in respect of certain pieces of land in Nagavara village (prior to 1999) and thus about 52 acres 17 guntas from out of about 164.26 acres had been 16 OS.NO.6826/2016 either set aside or denotified. Vyalikaval House Building Co- Operative Society had thus approached the State Government with the request to acquire even the remaining extent of 52 acres 17 guntas in Nagavara village including an extent of 1 Acre 26 Guntas in Sy.No.49/3. The State Government had thus issued a Notification dated 28/07/1999 under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire an extent of 52 acres 17 guntas comprised in various survey numbers in Nagavara village including the portion of Sy.No.49/3 measuring to an extent of 1 Acre 26 Guntas.
Further submitted that, Since the State Government did not proceed with the acquisition of 52 acres 17 guntas of land in Nagavara village under the Notification dated 28/07/1999, the Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, seeking for a direction to the State Government to complete the acquisition proceedings. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had upheld the said Notification dated and had issued a direction to the State Government to take steps to issue the final Notification under Sec.6(1). The said judgment is reported in 2006(1) KLJ Pg.233 (B. Anjanappa & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others). It is relevant to submit that in the very 2nd para of the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has very clearly observed that the appellants in Writ Appeal No.2532/2004 are the owners of particular pieces of lands and one such land is clearly specified as 17 OS.NO.6826/2016 Sy.No.49/3 measuring 1 Acre 36 Guntas. The aforesaid judgment (2006(1) KLJ Pg. 233) had been challenged by Anjanappa and others (including Jojappa) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case bearing C.A.No. 193032/2012. It is important to observe that the son of Jojappa by name wana Sri. J. Sandhyagappa had filed an affidavit dated 23/03/2006 in the said S.L.P.(C) No.24972/2005 (subsequently converted to C.A.No. 1930-32/2012) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, declaring that he had settled the matter out of court and withdrawing the said Special Leave Petition pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 measuring 1 Acre 26 Guntas of Nagavara Village. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed the judgment dated 07/02/2012, reported in 2012 (10) SCC Pg. 184 (B. Anjanappa Vs. Vyayalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Others). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the acquisition proceedings was bad and at Para 27 of the Judgement specifically directed that if Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. was in possession of any portion of the acquired land, then the same to be returned to the land owners and to file a compliance report before the Court. Para 27 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"Para 27: If respondent 1 is in possession of the acquired land or any portion thereof, then the same shall be returned to the land owners concerned within a period of two months from today. This direction shall apply not only qua the appellants but other land owners who may not have filed Writ Appeals or Special Leave 18 OS.NO.6826/2016 Petitions, may be due to poverty, illiteracy or ignorance. However, it is made clear that the above mentioned directions shall not apply to such of the land owners who have withdrawn the Special Leave Petitions. If any of the land owners has received compensation from the State, then the latter shall be free to recover the same in accordance with Law."
(Emphasis supplied) In accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anjanappa's case (2012 (10) SCC Pg.
184), Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. had filed the compliance report in C.A.No.1930/2012, furnishing the details of the land acquisition involved under the Notification dated 28/07/1999. The details pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village is found at SI.No.17 at Para 8 of the compliance report submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is clearly stated therein that the S.L.P. pertaining to Sy.No.49/3 measuring 1 Acre 26 Guntas had been withdrawn. Further, the report also furnishes the details of the total extent of land measuring 98 Acres 21 Guntas comprised in various survey numbers of Nagavara Village in the layout plan that had been submitted for approval to the Bangalore Development Authority. Sy.No.49/3 measuring to an extent of 5 Acres 10 Guntas is shown at the table attached therewith. Therefore, it becomes clear and specific that the land measuring 5 Acres 10 Guntas comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village is included in the layout plan approved by the Bangalore Development Authority on 12/09/2003. Considering the 19 OS.NO.6826/2016 said compliance report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has passed the Order dated 24/04/2014 in C.A.No. 1930/2012 and at Para 11 of the said Order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically clarified that the said Court in the case of B. Anjanappa (2012 (10) SCC 184) has confined the land in dispute to 52 acres 17 guntas only and had also placed reliance on the State Government proceedings dated July 2012 and has confirmed the same. The BDA on a mistaken notion, had passed a resolution dated 16/05/2012, revoking the layout plan that had been approved in respect of Nagavara Village and had also issued certain orders and endorsements. The aforesaid order and action of the BDA was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by Smt. Akkamma and others in W.P.No.27725/2013 & connected matters. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed the Final Order dated 25/09/2014 in W.P.No.27725/2013 & connected matters, setting aside the aforesaid resolution dated 16/05/2012 Bangalore Development Authority. It is relevant to mention that in the meanwhile, several Writ Petitions been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, challenging the acquisition proceedings dated 21/02/1986 pertaining to lands comprised in Nagawara Village. The Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed the Judgment dated 14/07/2011 in W.P.No.11910-914/2009 and connected Writ Petitions and after referring to all the previous judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has specifically clarified at Para 38 of the judgment (internal page 41) 20 OS.NO.6826/2016 that neither the High Court nor the Apex Court has quashed the acquisition notifications in respect of Nagawara Village in Toto. The Hon'ble High Court has also clarified at Para 39 of the judgment that Narayana Reddy case (ILR 1991 (3) KAR 2248 & 1995 (3) SCC 128) was relating to acquisition pertaining to Cholanayakanahalli Village in Bangalore South Taluk and not to Nagawara Village. Ultimately, all the Writ Petitions challenging acquisition of lands pertaining to Nagawara Village have been dismissed. Therefore, the understanding and perusal of the above documents and judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India would make it clear that the acquisition of land in respect of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village in favour of M/s. Vyalikaval House Building Co- Operative Society Limited has never been set aside and that the same has attained finality. Thus, the residential site bearing No.784 (Suit Schedule Property) belonging to the plaintiffs has legally vested with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have the right, title and interest over the said property.
FACTS RELATING TO DISPUTE IN QUESTION Once the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated and completed under Sec.4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, any subsequent proceedings relating to change of entries in the RTC or in the revenue records or any subsequent sale by the erstwhile land owners whose lands have been acquired, would all be rendered void ab-initio and would be of no consequence. The 21 OS.NO.6826/2016 defendant No.1 has apparently/allegedly purchased the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 measuring 3 Acres under the sale deed dated 07/03/2013 by placing reliance on the judgment dated 07/02/2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A.No. 1930/2012 (Anjanappa case, referred to supra). The said transaction is a void transaction since the land in question i.e., Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village had been acquired way back on 21/02/1986. The possession of the lands had also been taken on 19/02/1988 as evidenced in the Notification dated 05/05/1998. Therefore, the defendant No.1 does not have any right, title or interest over the Suit Schedule Property in question and further, the said sale deed dated 07/03/2013 is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs have acquired title to the Suit Schedule Property under a registered sale deed from the vendor who had inturn purchased the said Suit Schedule Property from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited in whose favour, the entire land comprised in Sy.No.49/3 (in which the site / Suit Schedule Property is situated) of Nagavara Village had been acquired on 21/02/1986, the plaintiffs are the lawful and legal owners of the Suit Schedule Property and they cannot be dispossessed by the defendant No.1 who has absolutely no right, title or interest over the property in question. The defendant No.1 by colluding with the police officials had been trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property in question by relying upon the Order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. Fortunately for the plaintiffs, the Hon'ble Court of 22 OS.NO.6826/2016 Karnataka has quashed said Order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner. After the passing of the Final Order dated 19/07/201 by the learned single judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.29139-143/2015 & connected matters, the defendant No.1 is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property by using the aid and assistance of rowdy elements and goondas. The police authorities are not entertaining the complaints of the plaintiffs. There is every possibility that the defendant No.1 would use her power and might and dispossess the plaintiffs from their possession in and I over the Suit Schedule Property. Hence, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit. CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 04/07/2015 when the defendant No.1 attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property with the aid and assistance of the police authorities based on an order dated 13/06/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and pursuant to the Final Order dated 19/07/2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.29139-143/2015 and the threat being made out subsequently also by the defendant No.1 to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property. The entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. JURISDICTION: The suit schedule property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore this Court has the jurisdiction to deal with and to decide the suit and grant the relief sought for.
23OS.NO.6826/2016
3. On issuance of summons, defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement. In the written statement as contended as follows;
The suit filed by the plaintiffs is wholly misconceived, devoid of merits and untenable in Law. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The various factual averments made in the Memorandum of plaint are not correct and the defendant No.1 has hereunder stated the true facts of the case. The averments made in paragraphs-3 to 5 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not within the knowledge of the defendant No.1 and the same are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments of the plaintiffs that Smt.A.A. Manjula had purchased residential site bearing No. 784, alleged to be in the layout said to have been formed by Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society Ltd, hereinafter referred as Society and that the same is in the land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village, Bengaluru North Taluk, are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The schedule property described in the Memorandum of Plaint is not correct and the same is hereby denied. The defendant No.1 submits that, the alleged residential site described in the schedule of the Memorandum of Plaint is non existing property and the same is not identifiable in the facts and circumstance that, no revenue sketch or City Survey Sketch is produced for identification and location of the said property. The further averments of the plaintiffs that, the residential site bearing No.784 is in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village are incorrect and the same are hereby denied. The said averment is 24 OS.NO.6826/2016 based on no records and imaginary and self serving statement of the plaintiffs. The averments made in paragraph-4 of the Memorandum of Plaint that, the said Smt.A.A. Manjula had been put in possession of the suit schedule property are incorrect and the same hereby denied. The alleged katha certificate said to have been issued in the name of Smt.A.A.Manjula is untenable and the same is based on alleged sale deed which is illegal and untenable and as such, the said Smt.A.A.Manjula did not derived any Lawful rights, title and interest and much less possession over the alleged property under the alleged sale deed dated 01.07.2005. The alleged sale transactions made by the Society in favour of G.Prasad Reddy, who is Land Developer are illegal and sham transactions made by the Society in collusion with Developer i.e. Sree Shakthi Promoter and Developers and G.Prasad Reddy and the said fact is apparently borne out on record of the document produced by the plaintiffs themselves. Illegal and sham sale transactions are made by the Society and Sree Shakthi Promoter and Developers in favour of G.Prasad Reddy in respect of Hundreds of sites and a statement of list of sites got prepared on the basis of available encumbrance certificates issued by concerned Sub-Registrar numbering about 133 sites. Admittedly he is not the member of the Society and not eligible for allotment of hundreds of sites by the Society. The averments made in paragraph-5 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the katha certificate, katha extract and payment of property taxes to BBMP, Bengaluru, is of no consequence as the sale transaction claimed 25 OS.NO.6826/2016 by the plaintiffs is illegal and sham transaction and they did not derive any right, title or interest much less lawful possession over the alleged site described as schedule property The alleged document Nos. 3 & 4 produced are untenable and of no consequence. The averments made in paragraph-6 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not within the knowledge of defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The averments made in paragraph-7 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to purchase of the alleged suit schedule property by G.Prasad Reddy under registered sale deed dated 31.03.2004 from the Society, the same is false, incorrect and liable to be rejected. The land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village did not vest in the State Government nor in the Society and the Society did not acquired rights, title and interest over any part of land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village and as such, the alleged sale deed in favour of G.Prasad Reddy said to be executed by the Society is without competence, illegal and sham transaction. Therefore, the alleged sale deed is null and void and unenforceable in Law. The possession of the land Sy.No.49/3 had not been taken and vested in the Society in accordance with Law at any point of time. Therefore, the alleged recitals with regard to transfer of rights, title and interest and possession of the alleged schedule property either in favour of G.Prasad Reddy or in favour of Smt.A.A.Manjula are factually incorrect and only made in the documents which is result of illegal and sham transaction. The averments made in paragraph-8 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to 26 OS.NO.6826/2016 Bangalore Development Authority, hereinafter referred as BDA has passed the resolution dated 12.9.2003 approving the layout plan submitted by the Society, the plaintiffs have suppressed subsequent events and made misrepresentation of facts, intentionally with ulterior motive, before this Court. The alleged Layout Plan relied upon by the plaintiffs said to have been approved by BDA, subsequently came to be canceled with immediate effect under resolution in Subject No.115/2012 in the Authority Meeting of BDA held on 16.05.2012. BDA having reconsidered the matter pursuant to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and Hon'ble Apex Court, has passed the said resolution and communication letter dated 21.06.2012 has been addressed to the Society and thereby the resolution is given effect to. Therefore, there is no valid approved sanctioned layout plan by the competent Planning Authority, BDA, identifying the residential site claimed by the plaintiffs. That upon the resolution passed by the BDA, Local Authority namely Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike initiated proceedings for cancellation of kathas, issuing notices to such persons claiming as allottes / purchasers of sites. In the backdrop of the above proceedings the Society did not have any right, title and interest much less lawful possession over any part of land Sy.No.49/3, presently Sy.No.49/7 of Nagawara village belonging to defendant No.1 and the alleged allotment issued and sale deed executed in favour G.Prasad Reddy, from whom the plaintiffs are claiming alleged rights, title and interest over the alleged residential site, 27 OS.NO.6826/2016 are all without any Authority of Law and the plaintiffs did not derive any rights, title or interest much less lawful possession over any portion of land Sy.No.49/3 presently Sy.No.49/7 of Nagawara village. Therefore, on the face of material records the plaintiffs have no manner of any right, title and interest much less lawful 2004 possession over the schedule property said to be comprised in land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village. The averments made in paragraph-9 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-10 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The defendant No.1 is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the land measuring an extent of 3-00 Acres comprised in land Sy.No.49/3, presently Sy.No.49/7 of Nagawara village and as such, there is no question of the defendant No.1 attempting to take over possession of the suit schedule property from the plaintiffs. The alleged residential site, suit schedule property is non existent, imaginary property and therefore, the allegation made against defendant No.1 in paragraph-10 of the Memorandum of Plaint are incorrect, false and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-11 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. After the purchase of the property during the year 2013, immediately she had put up Zinc sheet compound wall all round her property and she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and as such, there is no question of defendant No.1 carrying out the demolition of compound walls of several other 28 OS.NO.6826/2016 adjacent site owners with the alleged active support of Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division on 04.07.2015 as alleged by the plaintiffs.
Further submitted that, the averments made in paragraph-12 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the alleged complaint dated 04.07.2015 are not correct and the same are hereby denied. However, the sale deed dated 07.03.2013 under which defendant No.1 purchased an extent of 3-00 Acres of land in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village is true and correct and matter of record. She has purchased an extent of 3-00 Acres of land, portion of land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village, belonging to Daveeda Raj @ David.C, under registered sale deed dated 7.3.2013, copy of which is herewith produced by the plaintiffs as document No.11, by paying valuable sale consideration of Rs.5 Crores 62 lakhs 50 thousand. (5,00,62,50,000/-) and based on the registered sale deed the revenue Authorities have mutated and recorded the name of defendant No.1 in respect of an extent of 3-00 acres of land in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village, assigning further sub division number as Sy.No.49/7 of Nagawara village in respect of an extent of 3-00 acres of land belonging to defendant No.1. The purchase of 3-00 Acres of land under the said registered sale deed is legal and valid in Law and the defendant No.1 has acquired absolute rights, title and interest and lawful possession over the said extent of 3-00 Acres of land. All revenue records as on date are in the name of defendant No.1 in so far as land measuring 3- 00 Acres presently Sy.No.49/7 formerly portion of Sy.No.49/3 of 29 OS.NO.6826/2016 Nagawara village. Based on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government exercising the power of eminent domain passed order No.RD134 LAQB 2007 dated 05.02.2009 and directed that the Lands be restored to the erstwhile Land owners. That in compliance of the Government order the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, has taken steps and on redeposit of compensation amount awarded in a sum of Rs.17,63,022/- in respect of three items of lands including lands Sy. No.49/3 of Nagawara village, measuring an extent 6 Acres 33 Guntas and 0-14 guntas kharab land, issued Subardu Patra dated 25.03.2009. Thereafter, RTC proceeding initiated by Daveeda Raj @ David.C, in case No.RRT(DJ) (CR)24/2011-12 before the Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru North taluk, on holding enquiry passed order for effecting mutation and issue of RTC in respect portion of Land measuring 3-00 acres in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village belonging to his family. Accordingly, mutation is effected and RTC is issued in the name of Daveeda Raj @ David.C S/o Late D.Chowrappa. The defendant No.1 is absolute owner having all rights, title and interest and she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of land measuring 3-00 Acres with specific boundaries comprised in Sy.No.49/7 formerly Sy.No.49/3. The defendant No.1 after purchase of the land in question to safeguard her property, she had put up Zinc Sheet compound and the photographs showing the location of her property. With regard to averments made in paragraph-13 of the Memorandum of Plaint, the defendant No.1 submits that, her workers while making 30 OS.NO.6826/2016 arrangements to put up brick wall compound replacing the Zinc sheet compound, some unknown persons came near the land and tried to obstruct and make galata and in the said circumstances, defendant No.1 was constrained to submit complaints seeking protection to safe guard her property when some unknown third parties illegally attempted to interfere in the quiet enjoyment of defendant No.1 of her property and attempted to make galata. The averments of the plaintiffs that an order is passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru for police protection are not correct. It is only forwarding communication letter dated 13.06.2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, based on a representation on behalf of adjacent land owner Chowrappa. The averments made in paragraph-14 of the Memorandum of Plaint that, Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, has passed order on 13.06.2014 for police protection is not correct. It is only a forwarding letter to the police for necessary action. The averments made in paragraph-15 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to writ proceedings before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are matter on record. The averments made in paragraph-16 of the Memorandum of Plaint are also matter on record it is however submitted that, the interim order granted was an exparte order on suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of facts made by the writ petitioner, however, the Hon'ble High Court has not given any protection or given any decision with regard to lawful rights, title and interest and possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the properties allegedly claimed by them and rightly passed final order disposing 31 OS.NO.6826/2016 of the writ petitions holding that, the same is civil dispute in relation of the property in question. The averments made in paragraph-17 of the Memorandum of Plaint are matter on record. The averments made in paragraph-18 of the Memorandum of Plaint, except with regard to the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.2913929143/2015 on 19.7.2016 the further averments made therein are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments of the plaintiffs that, they continued to remain in possession of the suit schedule property and their possession was also protected by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The alleged residential site claimed by the plaintiffs is non existent, imaginary property and the same is not comprised in land Sy.No.49/7 formerly Sy.No. 49/3 of Nagawara village in an extent of 3-00 Acres at any stretch of imagination an belonging to defendant No.1. The averments of the plaintiffs that it is comprised in land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village is wholly unfounded, imaginary, without any basis and without any material on record. The same is concocted, created and imaginary for claiming the alleged residential site in the property belonging to defendant No.1. The averments made in made in paragraph-19 of the Memorandum of Plaint are incorrect, false and the same are hereby denied. The defendant No.1 is in lawful possession and enjoyment of her property measuring an extent of 3-00 Acres of land in Sy.No.49/7 formerly Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village and the plaintiffs are in no way concerned to the property belonging to defendant No.1 and as such, there is no 32 OS.NO.6826/2016 question of defendant No.1 attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. The further averments of the plaintiffs are in correct and same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-20 of the Memorandum of Plaint are only hypothetical and imaginary, a general principle not applicable to the facts of the present case. The plaintiffs are not in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as allegedly claimed by them. The averments of the plaintiffs that, the vendor of the plaintiffs had been put in possession of the very same property on 05.04.2004 under a possession certificate and registered sale deed dated 31.04.2004 said to be executed by the Society are all incorrect, false and the same hereby denied. That with regard to averments made in paragraph-21 of the Memorandum of Plaint, the vendors of defendant No.1 have absolute rights, title and interest over the land in question measuring an extent of 3-00 Acres in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have legal and marketable title to alienate the land in question, who have sold the land in question in favour of defendant No.1 for valuable sale consideration. Defendant No.1 is bonafide purchaser for valuable sale consideration and defendant No.1 has acquired absolute rights, title and interest over an extent of 3-00 Acres of land in Sy.No.49/7 formerly Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village. The averments of the plaintiffs that land measuring an extent 6 Acres 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village had been acquired under final notification dated 21.02.1986 and that, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have 33 OS.NO.6826/2016 never challenged the acquisition proceedings before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-22 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments of the plaintiffs that the sale deed dated 7.3.2013 is a document void ab-initio on the ground that, the land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village had been acquired by the State Government in favour of the Society are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The defendant No.1 submits that, there is no valid acquisition proceedings, vesting the land in question in the State Government and in turn, transferring to the Society and the lawful possession of the land had not been taken in accordance with Law as required U/S 16(1) of Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition proceedings for the benefit of the Society relied upon by the plaintiffs had been held to be illegal, malafide and colourable exercise of power by the decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several decisions more fully detailed hereunder. In that view of the matter the State Government having power of eminent domain rightly exercised the power and issued the Government orders for restoration of lands in favour of the land owners.
Further submitted that, the averments made in paragraphs- 23, 24 and 25 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The alleged preliminary and final notifications said to be issued U/S 4(1) and 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act are illegal and unsustainable in Law. The alleged 34 OS.NO.6826/2016 notification said to have been issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer U/S 16(2) of land acquisition Act is illegal, unfounded and based on no material records. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka declined to accept the contention of the Society that, the possession of the lands had been taken under the alleged notification issued U/S 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has conclusively held that the possession of the lands were not taken by the State Government and handed over to the Society in accordance with Law and quashed the acquisition proceedings in the proceedings initiated by the land owners. The averments. made in paragraph-26 of the Memorandum of Plaint referring to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is matter on record. With regard to the alleged acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government for the benefit of the Society has checkered History as detailed hereunder.
a) That land owner Smt.Puttamma filed writ petition No.8194/1987 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the acquisition proceedings and the acquisition proceedings were quashed against which the Society preferred WA No.506/1996 and Connected writ appeals before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which came to be dismissed. The Society preferred SLP No.6196/1998 before Hon'ble Apex Court which came to be dismissed on 07.04.1998.
b) The acquisition proceedings initiated by the Authorities and the State Government were subject matter of challenge before the 35 OS.NO.6826/2016 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in batch of writ petitions, wherein, Land Sy.No.49/3 was involved in batch of writ petitions in WP No.642128/94 and connected writ petitions in WP No.9815/1994 by the family members of Late Arogyappa and the acquisition proceedings were quashed in respect of several lands including land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village vide order dated 18.02.1997.
c) The Society preferred writ appeals Nos. WA Nos. 2336- 2343/1997 and connected writ appeals before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which came to be dismissed by Judgment dated 16.1.1998. The SLP (Civil) No. 495498/1999 filed by the Society before Hon'ble Apex Court were dismissed by order dated 14.07.1999.
d) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, passed Judgment in WA No.2188/1998 filed by Land owner, H.Narayanappa quashing the acquisition proceedings under Judgment dated 17.01.2000. While passing the Judgment, Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, on detailed consideration of the matter at para-5 of the Judgment held that "the society is a bogus Society". The Society preferred Civil Appeal No.902/2001 before Hon'ble Apex Court which came to be withdrawn, and order passed on 26.07.2007.
e) That Land owners V.Chandrappa and N.Anjanappa preferred WA No.2294/1999 which came to be allowed by Judgment dated 17.01.2000 before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Society preferred Review Petition No.156/2000 36 OS.NO.6826/2016 which came to be dismissed by Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the reported decision ILR 2002 KAR 2113.
f) That arising out of the Judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 2294/1999 and Review petition No.156/2000 the Society preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 2086-2087/2004 before Hon'ble Apex Court which is decided on 02.02.2007, dismissing the Civil Appeals, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1164. Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Narayanareddy Vs State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2248, decision in WA No.2336-2343/1997, decision in the case of HMT HBCS Vs. Syed Khader and Ors. reported in (1995)2 SCC 677 and decision in HMT HBCS Vs. M.Venkataswamappa & Ors, reported in (1995)3 SCC 128 categorically laid down and recorded finding at para-6 of the Judgment holding that, when the acquisition has been found totally malafide and not for bonafide purpose, the ground of delay and acquiescence in the case has no substance. It is further held that, the issue of notification was malafide and it was not for public purpose.
g) That, one Smt. Lakshmamma and another filed Contempt Petition (C) No.288-295/1999 in respect of land Sy.No.24/1 and 78/7 of Nagawara village before Hon'ble Apex Court, complaining against the then Chief Secretary and Revenue Authorities that, in the revenue records of the Lands belonging to the petitioners, their names are not mentioned and recorded. That on submissions made by the respondents / State Authorities in the said proceeding 37 OS.NO.6826/2016 stating that compliance has been made the contempt notices are discharged under Order dated 12.9.2000.
h) The defendant No.1 submits that the plaintiffs are not bonafide purchasers of alleged residential site claimed by them in the suit and they did not derived any rights, title and interest over the alleged residential site claimed by them in view of undisputed fact that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government and the Authorities for the benefit of the Society are held to be null and void, vitiated by fraud and malafide. The State Government has taken decision in complying the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex Court, restoring the lands to the erstwhile land owners on recovering the amount of compensation paid to the land owners pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. Therefore the Society had no legal rights, title and interest and competence to form layout and dispose the alleged residential site. The alleged sale deed said to be executed by the Society in favour of G.Prasad Reddy and in turn alleged to be purchased by Smt. A.A.Manjula through whom the plaintiffs allegedly claim rights, title and interest over residential site, are all illegal and null and void and not enforceable in law. The plaintiffs are not in lawful possession and enjoyment of the alleged residential site claimed by them at any point of time and the alleged residential site is not comprised in land Sy. No.49/3, portion of land measuring an extent of 3-00 acres belonging to defendant No.1 reassigned as land Sy. No.49/7 of Nagawara Village, as falsely claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. The 38 OS.NO.6826/2016 defendant No.1 is in lawful possession and enjoyment of an extent of 3 acres of land, Sy.No.49/7 formerly portion of Sy. No.49/3 of Nagawara Village. As already stated Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in batch of Writ Petitions in WP Nos.6421-28/1994 and connected Writ Petitions passed order on 18.02.1997 categorically recording a finding that there is no material to show that the Government has taken possession from the land owners and quashed the acquisition proceedings, wherein land Sy. No.49/3 is also involved.
i) The Society had filed OS No.1475/2000 before this Hon'ble Court and on trial this Hon'ble Court dismissed the suit by passing judgment and decree dated 21.02.2008. The Society filed another suit in OS No.1174/2001 before this Hon'ble Court and upon trial of the suit this Hon'ble Court passed judgment and decree on 01.08.2009.
j) The alleged action of the Society in making use of the land for the public purposes is apparently not in accordance with law and the residential site claimed by the plaintiffs was not allotted to the members of the Society and 100s (hundreds) of sites are allotted to one G.Prasad Reddy who is a Land Developer and he is not a member of the Society and on enquires made it is learnt that bulk allotment of sites on record is said to of the said G.Prasad Reddy and therefore it is apparent on the face of the records that the land notified for acquisition for public purposes has been sought to be diverted for wrongful gains to enrich a developer who in turn, executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The alleged 39 OS.NO.6826/2016 documents, katha certificate issued and tax paid receipts are all only paper documents arising out of sham and illegal transaction and the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of any portion of land belonging to defendant No.1. the number of sites allotted to G.Prasad Reddy can be ascertained from the Society who has the custody of all records and in spite of making requests the Society is not disclosing the informations and furnishing the records as the transactions between the Society and G.Prasad Reddy are illegal, collusive and for extraneous considerations made for illegal enrichment of the office bearers of the Society, the Developer Sree Shakthi Promoter and Developers and the Developer the said G.Prasad Reddy. There is no approved layout plan identifying the residential site claimed by the plaintiffs. The layout plan said to have been sanctioned and approved by Bengaluru Development Authority had been cancelled subsequently and as such, the alleged residential site be made in favour claimed by the plaintiffs is not identifiable on the spot.
k) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of B.Anjanappa Vs. Vyalikaval HBCS Ltd. & Ors. Reported in (2012) 10 SCC Page 184, the Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeals holding that, there is no prior approval sanctioning the Housing Scheme in favour of the Society and acquisition proceedings are vitiated and issued directions to the Society, 1st respondent therein holding that this direction shall apply not only qua the appellants but other land owners who may not have challenged the acquisition proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 40 OS.NO.6826/2016 Bengaluru City Co-operative Housing Society Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, reported in AIR 2012 SC Page 1395 also held at para-42 of the judgment that, acquisition proceedings initiated in favour of the said Society are malafide and vitiated in favour of the said Society are malafide and vitiated and issued similar directions at para-43 of the judgment. The State Government having considered the Law laid down in the case of V.Chandrappa and B.Anjanappa stated supra and other decisions of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court having given deliberate considerations obtaining legal opinion from the then Advocate General and Law Department of State Government rightly passed Government order dated 04.06.2013 for restoration of lands to the erstwhile land owners after recovery of compensation amount. It is clear from the said Government Order that Government order dated 05.02.2009 is revived and under the said thereby actions already taken Government order are also ratified and confirmed. Therefore, the action of State Authorities in restoring the land Sy. No.49/3, presently Sy. No.49/7 of Nagawara Village to the erstwhile land owner is just and proper and in accordance with law.
l) The Government order dated 04.06.2013 being subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble High Court in WP Nos.32482- 485/2013 and the order passed in the Writ Petitions is subject matter of challenge in SLP Nos.36857-860/2014 before Hon'ble Apex Court and the said matter is pending consideration, wherein, interim order of stay of the operation of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court is issued. In this context, some persons claiming as 41 OS.NO.6826/2016 allottees of residential sites, similarly that of plaintiffs approached Hon'ble High Court in WP No35381-35389/2015 (LA-RES) challenging the Government order dated 05.02.2009 and sought for issue of direction to the Revenue Authorities, to update and to revise the revenue records in respect of land Sy. No.78/6 of Nagawara Village in accordance with final notification dated 21.02.1986 issued by the State Government. Hon'ble High Court on the affidavit submitted by the State Authorities declined to issue direction and passed order disposing of the Writ Petitions on the ground that the very subject matter is pending in adjudication before Hon'ble Apex Court.
Land Sy. No.49/3 of Nagawara Village originally measured an extent of 7 acres 10 guntas including 14 guntas of kharab land belonging to the family of Arogyappa. That Daveedappa is son of Arogyappa, who died leaving behind his son D.Chowrappa who also died leaving behind his son Daveed Raj alias David.C. The names of Daveed Raj alias David.C, S/o. D.Chowrappa, Chowrareddy, S/o. Thomasappa and R.Jojappa, S/o. Rajappa, were the khathedhars, reflected in the revenue records as on the year 1984-86 when the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Authorities and the State Government for the benefit of the Society. Thereafter, on bifurcations and Sub-Division of Sy. No.49/3 measured an extent of 5 acres 24 guntas out of which an extent of 3-00 acres belonging to the family of Daveed Raj alias David.C, S/o. D.Chowrappa The defendant No.1 submits that, the averments made in paragraph-27 of the Memorandum of Plaint 42 OS.NO.6826/2016 are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The challenge to acquisition made by family members of the vendors of defendant No.1 shall accrue the benefit of the vendors of defendant No.1. There is no valid acquisition proceedings in respect of land Sy.No.49/3 presently Sy.No.49/7 of Nagawara village. The averments made in paragraph-28 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the interpretation of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court, contending that, the extent of land belonging to David Raj was not involved in the writ petition are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-29 of the Memorandum of Plaint are matter on record and it may be seen that, land Sy.No.49/3 is also referred to in the said notification dated 28.7.1999. The averments made in paragraphs-30 & 31 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is matter on record. However, the further averments made by the plaintiffs with regard to the affidavit filed by J.Sandhyagappa said to be son of Jojappa are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-32 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is matter on record. The averments made in paragraph-33 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the compliance report said to have been filed by the Society, the same is factually incorrect and as such the contents of the said report are incorrect and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in paragraph-34 of the Memorandum of Plaint with regard to the order passed on 24.04.2014 is matter on record. The 43 OS.NO.6826/2016 averments made in paragraph-35 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. There is no valid approved layout plan issued by competent Local Authority, BDA, Bengaluru, as on date and as such the alleged residential site is unidentifiable in the absence of Revenue Sketch or City Survey Sketch and at any stretch of imagination the alleged residential site is not comprised in land Sy.No.49/3, presently Sy.No.49/7 of Nagawara village, belonging to defendant No.1.
That with regard to the averments made in paragraphs 36 & 37 of the Memorandum of Plaint the interpretation sought to be made with regard to the decision of Hon'ble High Court, is self serving and the same is not correct and not accepted and admitted by the defendant No.1. The averments made in paragraph 36 of the Memorandum of plaint with regard to judgment dated 14.07.2011 passed in WP Nos.11910-914/2009 and connected Writ Petitions, the land owners therein have preferred WA Nos.16810-16814/2011 pending consideration before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and the Writ Appeals are admitted and posted for hearing and as such the said findings recorded and judgment passed by Learned Single Judge has not reached finality and the same is under challenge before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In that view of the matter, the contentions of the plaintiffs placing reliance on the said judgment are untenable and liable to be rejected. The averments made in paragraphs-38 & 39 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The averments made in 44 OS.NO.6826/2016 paragraph-40 of the Memorandum of Plaint are not correct and the same are hereby denied. There is no cause of action for filing the suit and the one alleged in paragraph-41 of the memorandum of plaint are not correct. The alleged cause of action is concocted and created without any basis for filing the suit. She is in lawful possession and enjoyment of her property, presently land Sy.No.49/7 formerly portion of land Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village and as such there is no question of the defendant No.1 attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. The suit filed against the defendants is wholly misconceived and untenable in Law. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is with malafide intention with ulterior motive to harass the defendants for collateral and extraneous considerations illegally to extract money. On the face of the records the alleged residential site is not comprised in the property belonging to defendant No.1, purchased from defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and as such, the defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings of the suit and the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and therefore, liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs allegedly claiming the alleged residential site said to have been purchased from G.Prasad Reddy, who in turn, said to have purchased from the Society, who are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings of the suit and the suit filed without impleading necessary and proper parties is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit and the valuation made in paragraph- 44 of the Memorandum of Plaint and the valuation slip filed are 45 OS.NO.6826/2016 incorrect and contrary to material on records and the prevailing guidance value prescribed by the State Government under Notification No. CVC 25/2014-15, Bengaluru, dated 28.03.2016 came into effect from 01.04.2016. The market value prescribed as per the guidance value of Housing Society Site is Rs.35,600/- per square meter and the dimension of alleged residential site claimed by the plaintiffs is 40 ft. X 60 ft. total area is 2400 sq.ft. The guidance value per square foot is Rs.3,307.32 ps and as such the market value based on the guidance value of the alleged residential site is Rs.79,37,570/-. However, the market value stated by the plaintiffs is Rs. 72,00,000/- which is erroneous, incorrect and on the lower side contrary to the guidance value prescribed by the State Government. The plaintiffs are liable to pay Court Fee as provided Under Section 24(a) of KCF & SV Act as the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession and enjoyment of the alleged suit schedule property. Therefore, the Court Fee paid by the plaintiffs for seeking the reliefs is insufficient and the plaintiffs are bound to make proper valuation and pay proper Court Fee. For framing preliminary issue with regard to the valuation and payment of Court fee and decide the same before proceeding with the suit. The plaintiffs have no manner of any rights, title or interest much less possession over the alleged suit schedule property as per records as on date of filing the suit and the alleged residential site is not comprised in land Sy.No.49/3, presently Sy.No.49/7 measuring an extent of 3-00 Acres belonging to defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief prayed in the 46 OS.NO.6826/2016 suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The various factual averments and allegations made in the memorandum of plaint which are not specifically traversed herein are not correct and the same are hereby denied. Hence, prayed to dismiss the plaintiffs suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Based on these pleadings, my predecessor has framed issues as under:
1. Whether plaintiffs proves that they are the lawful and absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs proves that alleged sale deed dated 07.06.2013 executed by defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of land Sy No.49/3 measuring 3 acres of Nagawara Village, Bengaluru is not binding on plaintiffs ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs proves that defendant No.1 is interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as alleged ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs proves that they are entitled for the relief of declaration as sought ?
5. Whether the plaintiffs proves that they are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought ?
6. What order or decree ?
Additional Issues were framed by this court on 04.02.2022 47 OS.NO.6826/2016
1. whether defendant No1 proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5. Plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked as many as 21 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 and closed his side of evidence. The defendants did not adduce their side of evidence and did not exhibit any documents on their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments. I have carefully scrutinized entire records before me.
7. My findings on the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 to 5 : Donot arise for consideration.
Addl Issue No1 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.6 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8. ADDL. ISSUE NO.1: Being vital issue taken
first.
9. This suit is filed for Declaration and injunction. This being a right in REM, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove his title to suit schedule property and also that his vendor had a good title to suit schedule property to convey the same in favour of plaintiff.48
OS.NO.6826/2016
10. Plaintiff's case that the wife of the 1st plaintiff and the mother of the 2nd and 3rd, plaintiffs, i.e., Late Smt.A.A.Manjula, had under a registered sale deed dated 01/07/2005, purchased for valuable consideration, the residential site bearing No.784, measuring East to West 60 Feet and North to South 40 Feet and thereby totally measuring 2400 Square Feet in the layout formed by "Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd.' in the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk, morefully described in the Schedule hereunder and hereinafter called as the 'Suit Schedule Property'. The aforesaid site had been purchased under the registered sale deed dated 01/07/2005 from one Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. The said Late Smt. A.A.Manjula had been put in possession of the Suit Schedule Property under the terms of he registered sale deed / registered document and continued to be in possession of the said Suit Schedule Property. The Bangalore Development Authority under the Order dated 25/07/2005 bearing No.BDA/RON/C3/784/05-06 issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Suit Schedule Property in favour of Late Smt.A.A.Manjula. Subsequently, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the Order dated 25/03/2009 bearing No.27/0809 has also issued the Khata Certificate in respect of the Suit Schedule Property in favour of Late Smt. A.A.Manjula. The plaintiffs have also been paying the property taxes in respect of the Suit Schedule Property and continue to remain in 49 OS.NO.6826/2016 possession of the same. representatives of Late Smt.A.A.Manjula have continued to remain in possession of the Suit Schedule Property though the Khata continues to remain in the name of Late Smt. A.A.Manjula.
11. Further that, Sri.G.Prasad Reddy (vendor of Smt.A.A.Manjula) had in turn purchased the Suit Schedule Property" for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 31/03/2004 from Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. The said Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited had put the said Sri.G.Prasad Reddy in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and had also issued the Possession Certificate dated 05/04/2004. The Khata in respect of the Suit Schedule Property had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority vide its Order bearing Sl.No.BDA/RON/C3/784/2004-05 dated 10/06/2004 in favour of Sri. G.Prasad Reddy. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had passed the resolution dated 12/09/2003 approving the Layout plan submitted by Vyalikavai House Building Co-Operative Society Limited in respect of Land measuring 98 acres 21 guntas in Nagavara village. Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara village is a part of the said approved layout plan & the Suit Schedule Property, i.e., Site No.784 is comprised within the land bearing Sy.No.49/3 of Nagavara Village, as could be clearly seen from the approved layout plan.
50OS.NO.6826/2016
12. To be noted, in this suit G. Prasad Reddy said to be Plaintiff's vendor and he said to have purchased the suit schedule property from Vayalikaval House Building Society and Sree Shakthi Promoters and Developers ® Partnership Firm called as developer/promoter who all have not been made parties to this suit. It has also been admitted by PW1 in his cross examination that he has not made G. Prasad Reddy or Vayalikaaval House Building Society as party to this suit. As said above, this being suit for declaration of title, Plaintiff's vendor is a necessary party to this suit where this being a right in rem, Plaintiff has to prove his title through his vendor to show that his vendor had a good title to convey suit schedule property.
13. Before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5755-5756/2011 in Moreshar s/o Yadaorao Mahajan Vs Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi(D) THR. Lrs. And Others (DB) dated 27.09.2022- held in para 18 that necessary party is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.
14. Though the authority is pertaining to suit for specific performance, it holds good to this suit as without making his vendor G. Prasad Reddy and Vayalikaaval House Building Society as parties to this suit without whom no effective order can be passed by this court, this suit is bad for 51 OS.NO.6826/2016 non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, concluded that defendant No.1 proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, this additional Issue No.1 is held in the Affirmative.
15. ISSUE NOS.1 TO 5: For my findings on Additional Issue No.1, these issues donot arise for consideration.
16. ISSUE NO.6: In view of my finding on Issues No.1 to 5 and on Additional Issue No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw Decree accordingly.
*** (Dictated to the Stenographer computerized and print out taken by him, revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court today the 1 st day of February, 2023).
(S.G.SUNITHA) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
52OS.NO.6826/2016 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiffs:
PW.1 : Sri.A.H. Manjunath
Witness examined on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 Sale Deed dated 01.07.2005
Ex.P.2 Khatha Certificate issued by BDA dated
25.07.2005
Ex.P.3 Khatha Certificate
Ex.P.4 Khatha Extract
Ex.P.5 Tax paid receipts (computer copy)
Ex.P.6 Death Certificate of Manjula
Ex.P7 Certified copy of living family members of
deceased person
Ex.P8 Sale Deed dated 31.03.2004
Ex.P9 Possession Certificate dated 05.04.2004
Ex.P10 Layout plan
Ex.P11 Sale deed dated 07.03.2013
Ex.P12 Certified copy of order sheet in WP
No.29139/2015
Ex.P13 Certified copy of final order in WP
No.29139/2015
Ex.P14 Gazette notification dated 21.02.1986
Ex.P.15 Gazette notification dated 05.05.1988
Ex.P16 Certified copy of final order in WP No.9815/2009
Ex.P17 Gazette notification dated 28.07.1999
53
OS.NO.6826/2016
Ex.P18 Certified copy of compliance report dated
07.05.2012
Ex.P19 Certified copy of Civil Appeal No.1930/2012
Ex.P20 Copy of WP No.27725/2013 and others
Ex.P21 Certified copy of WP No.11910-914/2009 dated
14.07.2011
Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
VII. ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.