Bangalore District Court
Ravigopal vs The Commissioner on 20 June, 2018
C.R.P. 67) Govt. of Karnataka
Form
No.9(Civil)
Title sheet
for
Judgment in
Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH.NO.12)
PRESENT : SRI R.Y. SHASHIDHARA,
B.Com.,LL.B.,
XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 20th DAY JUNE, 2018.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.6617/2010
*****
PLAINTIFF: Ravigopal
S/o. N.M. Annaiah
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.19, 7th Cross,
2nd Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore 560011
(By Sri J.M.R.S., Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANT: The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority
Bangalore.
(By Sri A.S.H., Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 18-09-2010
Nature of the suit: Declaration of title and
permanent injunction
Date of the commencement of 01-07-20011
recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 20-06-2018
pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 09 02
JUDGMENT
This suit filed by the plaintiff declaring that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant its agents, officials from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. As per the plaint, the suit schedule property involved in this case is property CMC No290/1 and 5,6,7,8,9,10, khatha No.315 and old (Sy.No.49/5 measuring 1-18, excluding 3 sites), situated at Bomanahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
3. It is stated that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. Previously it was under the ownership and possession of one K.R. Rangappa. In the year 1965, he got converted the said land for industrial purpose. On 20-07-1972 he sold suit schedule property to the plaintiff through registered sale deed. As per the sale deed, the khatha of suit property transferred in the name of the plaintiff.
4. It is stated that entire suit schedule property was made into 10 industrial sites for the purpose of construction of industrial sheds. The plaintiff obtained approved layout plan from the industries and commerce department. He also obtained electricity power sanction. He constructed industrial sheds as per approved plan, 6 sheds leased to the tenants and they are running industries. Bommanahalli Village Panchayath recognized the said buildings and assessed tax.
5. It is stated that the defendant has notified the suit land but no land available for acquisition. The plaintiff had questioned the acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition. In view of the establishment of industries in and around the properties, on 12-10-1987 the Government has passed an order for regularization of unauthorized construction and Screening Committee was formed. Accordingly, Hon'ble High Court directed the plaintiff to approach the Screening Committee for regularization. On 29-05-1989 the plaintiff filed application before concerned authority and he is waiting for order of the Screening committee.
6. It is stated that the industries being run peacefully, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On 15-09-2010 the defendant and authorities attempted to trespass in to the suit schedule property, threatened to demolish the existing buildings. Above said act of the defendant is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit and prayed for decree.
7. As per the records initially the plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction, after appearance of the defendant and filed written statement, he got amended to the plaint and prayed for the relief of declaration of title.
8. After service of suit summons, the defendant has appeared through its counsel and resisted the case of the plaintiff by way of filing written statement.
9. In the written statement the defendant stated as follows:-
It is stated that the plaintiff has not stated the true and correct facts related to this suit. It is admitted that the suit schedule property is forms portion of a larger extent of land bearing Sy.No.49/5 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Bommanahalli village. The said land and other adjoining lands were acquired in pursuance of a development scheme formed for formation of Hosur-Sarjapur road Layout. It was acquired under Sec.17(A) and 17(3) of the BDA Act, 1976. Preliminary notification was on 15-12-1984 and final notification was on 18-11-1986. Acquired land which encompasses the suit schedule property has absolutely vested with the defendant authority. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
10. It is stated that the alleged contention of the plaintiff that he got converted the suit schedule property, obtained permission for construction of buildings for industrial sheds, construction of sheds, taking connection of electricity are do not ensure to the benefit of the plaintiff. In view of acquisition, negates all the above said developments to the suit schedule property. It is stated that it is not in the knowledge of this defendant that the plaintiff had filed Writ Petition and order passed in the said petition. It is stated that the suit schedule property is absolutely vested with the defendant. In view of acquisition proceedings, the plaintiff having been divested of the suit schedule property, he has no locus-standi to file this suit. Hence, the defendant prayed for dismissal of this case with exemplary costs.
11. On the basis of the pleadings of both parties, my learned Predecessor has framed the issues as follows:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves, the alleged interference and obstructions to such of his possession and enjoyment of the suit property, by the defendant and his men and also the attempt of illegal demolition of the existing structures in the suit property?
3. Whether the suit as brought is not maintainable for no issuance of statutory notice under section 64 of BDA Act?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed ?
5. What order or decree ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the defendant proves that suit schedule property survey No.49/5 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas have been acquired for the purpose of formation of Hosur Sarjapur road layout and accordingly suit property vested with them ?
12. To prove the above said issues, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1. Documents got marked Ex.P1 to P83. Defendant's side examined one witness as DW.1. Document got marked Ex.D1. After completion of evidence of both side the case posted for arguments on main.
13. Heard the arguments on main.
14. My answer to the above issues are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1 : In the negative
ISSUE NO.2 : In the negative
ISSUE NO.3 : In the negative
ISSUE NO.4 : In the negative
ADDL. ISSUE NO.1 : in the negative
ADDL. ISSUE NO.2 : in the affirmative
ISSUE NO.5 : As per the final order for the
following :
REASONS
15. ISSUE NO.1 AND ADDITONAL ISSUE NO.1 AND 2:- These issues are inter-connected. Hence, for the purpose of avoiding repeated discussions I have taken up these issues together for consideration.
The plaintiff contended that one K.R. Rangappa was owner of the suit schedule property. On 26-11-1965 he obtained conversion order of land bearing sy49/5 from competent authority. On 22-12-1965 conversion certificate issued. To prove the same, the plaintiff has produced orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, dated 25-11-1965. (official memorandum) and got marked as Ex.P3. He has produced the conversion sanctioned certificate dated 22-12-1965 issued by Tahasildar, Bangalore South Taluk and got marked as Ex.P2. These documents are establish that conversion order granted to the plaintiff for starting Mosaic flooring industry in the land bearing Sy. No.49/5 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas of Bommanhalli village. It is noticed that the defendant has not denied/challenged Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. It is noticed that the contention of the plaintiff that previously suit schedule property was belongs to one K.R. Rangappa, who got converted the said land in to industrial purpose is not at all denied by the defendant side.
16. The plaintiff further contended that owner of the suit schedule property viz., K.R. Rangappa sold suit schedule property to him under registered sale deed dated 27-07-1972. As per sale deed, the khatha entered in his name by Bommanahalli Gram Panchayath. To prove the above said facts, the plaintiff has produced sale deed dated 27-07- 1992 and marked as Ex.P1. This sale deed reveals that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property. Description and boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and in the plaint schedule are one and the same. He has produced Ex.P4 of the sketch showing the land bearing Sy.No.49/5 of Bommanahalli village. He has produced tax assessment extract for the year 1980-81 and got marked as Ex.P5. It is shows that name of the plaintiff entered as owner and possession of suit schedule property. It is noticed that contention of the plaintiff that previously suit property was belongs to one K.R. Rangappa, who obtained order in the year 1965 for conversion of the suit land in to industrial purpose, thereafter in the year 1972 he sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and accordingly name of the plaintiff entered in to revenue records.
17. The plaintiff has produced encumbrance certificate from 22-11- 1981 to 08-04-1987 of the suit schedule property and got marked as Ex.P6. He has produced mutation register extract for the year 1994- 95 and got marked as Ex.P7. It is mentioned that the plaintiff purchased suit schedule property. This land is converted and divided into 10 parts and it is coming under Gramatana. He has produced Records of Right extract (From No.V) and got marked as Ex.P8. It is mentioned that plaintiff purchased suit schedule property from K.R. Rangaswamy and acquired right over said property. Ex.P9 is the index of land in respect of suit schedule property and Ex.P10 is the tax assessment extract. Ex.P10 to P14 are the tax assessment extract for the year 1993, 1994 in respect of property No.290/1, 290/5, 290/6, 290/7 and 290/8,9,10. These documents showing about 7 industrial sheds are existed in the suit schedule property which are in the name of plaintiff.
18. Ex.P15 is the letter dated 07-03-1987 issued by the K.E.B., to the plaintiff in respect of sanction of 10 HP electricity connection. Ex.P16 is the No objection certificate dated 12-01-1998 issued by the Administrator, Bommanahalli Panchayath for no objection to 10 HP electricity connection to the second unit of the industrial shed in the suit schedule property. Ex.P17 is another letter by K.E.B. dated 29- 04-1991 issued to the plaintiff for permission to additional electricity power to the suit schedule property. Ex.P18 to P29 are the permission given by Bommanahalli CMC dated 14-12-1998 in favour of the plaintiff for renovation of running industrial shed in the suit schedule property and payment of amount.
19. Ex.P30 is the letter dated 25-09-1989 by the plaintiff to the Assistant Commissioner, (P.U.C.) of the defendant. Ex.P31 is the application given by the application given by the plaintiff for regularization of unauthorized construction in the suit schedule property. Ex.P32 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 21-11-1989 passed in WP No.7297, 7309, 7411, 7461, 7559 to 7571, 7623, 7584 to 7603, 7572 to 7583 and 7653, 7657 of 1989. The plaintiff of the present case is petitioner in WP 7623/1989. The plaintiff who was the petitioner of above said writ petition prayed for directing the respondent to regularise the construction of the industrial shed put up by him and the land in question in pursuance of the Government order dated 12- 10-1987 and not to demolish the same during the period of considering his request for regularization etc.,
20. On 21-04-1989 the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the above said Writ Petition as per the Writ Petition No.15201 to 15206/1985 (M.S. Narayanamurthy and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others). In the said Writ Petitions the Hon'ble Court observed as follows :-
As observed therein, it is open to the petitioner to take advantage of the Government order dated 12-10-1987 and to make suitable representation to the Screening Committee set up by the State Government in terms of the said Government Order within six weeks from this date and the Screening Committee shall consider the same strictly without relaxing the terms of the Government Order. This order shall not enable the petitioners to put up fresh construction but the constructions that are on the land in question shall not be demolished nor the petitioners should be dispossessed till the Screening Committee dispose of the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.
21. Ex.P34 is the representation given by the petitioner (date not mentioned) to the Special Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bangalore and prayed for not to proceed with the matter of payment of compensation awarded in respect of land in question till his application for regularization is consider by the competent authority viz., Screening Committee. Ex.P33 is the acknowledgement in respect of Ex.P34.
22. Ex.P35 is the miscellaneous notice dated 18-11-1990 issued to the plaintiff by the Surveyor for objector in respect of construction of unauthorized buildings. It is mentioned that as per the application filed by the plaintiff for regularization of construction in the suit property and as per the order of Hon'ble High Court they have received records. Hence, it is directed the plaintiff to produce records on the spot pertaining to the suit schedule property on 16-11-1990. Ex.P36 is the letter dated 18-11-1976 issued by the Village Panchayath Chairman, Bommanahalli Group Panchayath to one N.M. Annayapa. Ex.P37 to P- 56 are the tax paid receipts in the name of plaintiff. Ex.P57 to P63 are the self-assessment tax pad challans and copies of applications given by the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.P64 to P72 are the electricity bills in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P73 is the sanctioned plan issued by the Bommanahalli Gram Panchayath in respect of proposed industrial layout at Sy.No.49/5 of Bommanahalli village. It was issued in the year 1981-82 and renewed in the year 1985-86. Ex.P-74 is the proposed industrial layout plan at Sy.No.49/5 of Bommanahalli village dated 27-07-1982 and approved by the Chief Inspector of Factories. Ex.P75 to P82 are the photographs in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.P83 is the C.D. of the above said photographs.
23. I have perused the cross-examination of PW.1 by the defendant side. He has stated that no notice received by him from BDA or Government for acquisition of suit schedule property. It was suggested that he has violated Clause-6 of the acquisition order and constructed building as per the order of Hon'ble High Court he has not filed application before Screening Committee. But PW.1 has denied the same.
24. DW.1 in his examination-in-chief reiterated the averments of the written statement. To prove their case the defendant has not produced any documentary evidence. They produced authorization letter issued to the DW.1 for deposing evidence in this case. In his cross-examination DW.1 has admitted the suggestion put by the plaintiff side that, there are 6 industrial buildings in the suit schedule property, industries are running in the above said buildings, the suit property was converted in to industrial purpose in the year 1965. He has stated that he do not know that in the year 1983 industrial and commerce department formed industrial layout in the suit property and 80 HP electricity power given to 6 industries.
25. It was suggested that there is no acquisition of suit schedule property, since 1983 these industries in the suit schedule property, for that reason that land is not suitable for acquisition and it was not acquired. But PW.1 has denied the same. He has denied that the defendant authorities have claiming the suit schedule property and causing obstruction. It was suggested that the plaintiff got acquisition order in respect of suit schedule property, he has produced layout plan and documents regarding khatha, taking electricity connection and payment of tax and KEB bills. It is further suggested that in Ex.P75 and 76 - photos are going to show that there are buildings in the suit schedule property. DW.1 has admitted the same. But, he has denied that their authorities took the JCB in the suit schedule property and tried for demolition of the buildings. It is further suggested that even though the plaintiff is the owner of the property, they are tried for demolition of the construction in the suit property.
26. From going through the entire pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of both parties and arguments canvassed by the learned counsel of both side, it disclosing that originally the suit schedule property i.e., 1 acre 18 guntas of land was belongs to one K.R. Rangappa. It is further clear that in the year 1965 said K.R. Rangappa applied for conversion of the suit land in to industrial purpose. On 26- 11-1965 the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban district granted conversion order in favour of said K.R. Rangappa for conversion of the said land for the industrial purpose which has been permitted for starting mosaic flooring industry. It is further clear that as per Ex.P2 that on 22-12-1965 the Tahsildar, Bangalore South has issued conversion certificate in favour of K.R. Rangappa and permitted to utilize the above said land for industrial purpose. It is further clear that in the year 1972 K.R. Rangappa sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff through registered sale deed, as per the said sale deed the name of the plaintiff entered in to mutation records and he is paying tax to the concerned authorities. It is also clear that after conversion of the suit land in to industrial purpose it was divided in to 10 portions, out of the same 6 industrial sheds existing in the suit schedule property and running their business.
27. It is the case of the defendant that including suit schedule property i.e., land bearing Sy.No.49/5 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas along with other adjoining survey number lands were proposed for acquisition in pursuance of development of scheme formulated for formation of Hosur - Sarjapur road layout. Preliminary notification was on 15-12-1984 and final notification was on 28-11-1986. Suit schedule property of the present case is form and part of larger extent of land bearing Sy.No.49/5 and that property has absolutely vested with them. DW.1 in his examination-in-chief reiterated the above said averments of the written statement. To prove its case that the suit schedule property other properties acquired by the defendant authority, no documentary evidence produced before this Court. But, the acquisition of the suit schedule property is admitted by the plaintiff. It is noticed that in the pleadings and evidence the defendant has not stated that passing of award, taking the possession of the suit property and payment of compensation amount. The defendant also has not produced any documentary evidence in this regard. But, as stated above the plaintiff has admitted the acquisition proceedings and challenged the same before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
28. In para 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically contended that the defendant has notified the suit land for acquisition. He had questioning the said acquisition by way of Writ Petition. He further contended that in view of establishment of industries in and around the suit property the Government has passed an order on 12-10-1987 for regularization of unauthorized construction and for which a screening committee was formed with the Assistant Commissioner for prevention of unauthorized construction. In view of said Government order, Hon'ble High Court directed him to approach the Screening Committee for regularization. The plaintiff further contended that accordingly on 29-05-1989 he has filed an application before the concerned authorities for regularization of unauthorized construction.
29. As stated above, the plaintiff has challenged the acquisition proceedings in the Writ Petition. Ex.P32 is the order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in WP 7623/1989 dated 21-04-1999. In the said Writ Petition the petitioner/plaintiff of this case prayed for directing the defendant to regularize the construction of the industrial shed put up by him in the suit schedule land in pursuance of the Government order dated 12-10-1987 and not to demolish the same during the period of consideration of his request for regularization. As discussed above Hon'ble Court disposed off the said Writ Petition and directed the petitioner (plaintiff) to approach the Screening Committee.
30. Ex.P30 and P31 are the letter and application form filed by the plaintiff for regularization of unauthorized construction in the suit schedule property. As per the order of Hon'ble High Court (Ex.P32), on 29-5-1989 he has filed the said application and prayed for regularization of unauthorized construction in Sy.No.49/5. In Ex.P31 (column No.11) he has stated that this application is restricted to 0.34 guntas of land acquired by the BDA and wherein industrial sheds are situate and other facilities are provided. Apart from this DW.1 in his examination-in-chief deposed about acquisition of the suit schedule property, preliminary and final notification. In his cross-examination plaintiff side did not denied the same. As per Ex.P34 the plaintiff has requested the Special L.A.O., BDA, not to proceed with the matter of payment of compensation awarded to the land in question till his application considered for regularization. Therefore, it is clear that the suit schedule property was acquired by the defendant, accordingly 4(1) notification was on 15-02-1984 and final notification was on 28- 11-1986. It is true that the defendant has not produced any documents related to the acquisition notifications. At the same time as discussed above the plaintiff did not denied the acquisition proceedings and he has challenged the acquisition proceedings in the Writ Petition. Further, I am of the opinion that the admitted fact need not to be proved. Here in this case the plaintiff has admitted that in the year 1984 itself the defendant authority have acquired the suit schedule property.
31. As discussed above the plaintiff has proved that he has purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1972 through registered sale deed and he acquired the possession of the same. He also established that his vendor had obtained conversion order in respect of said property into industrial purpose. He also established that now there are 6 industrial sheds in the suit schedule property and running industries. I am of the opinion that even though the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit schedule property, in view of the acquisition proceedings he cannot claiming his ownership and possession of the suit schedule property. After preliminary final notification the plaintiff has lost his right over the suit schedule property. Moreover, as discussed above after the acquisition he has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for regularization of unauthorized construction made by him in the suit schedule property. As per the order of Hon'ble High Court, he has approached the Screening Committee for regularization of unauthorized construction. Therefore, after the acquisition of the suit property, the plaintiff cannot be say that he is the owner and in lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Further I come to the conclusion that the defendant has proved that the suit schedule property has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Hosur - Sarjapur road layout and accordingly it is vested with them. Therefore, I answer the issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 in the negative and additional issue No.2 in the affirmative.
32. ISSUE NO.2:- In view of my findings on the above said issues, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. Such being the case, I am of the opinion that when the plaintiff has not proved his lawful possession over the suit schedule property question of alleged interference by the defendant is does not arise. Hence, I answer the issue No.2 in the negative.
33. ISSUE NO.3:- The defendant contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable due to non-issuance of statutory notice under Section 64 of BDA Act. I have perused the above said contention of the defendant. As per the records, along with the plaint the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Order 64(2) of BDA Act and prayed for dispensation with the issuance of statutory notice to the defendant. Considering the said application, this Court allowed the same and dispensed with statutory notice to the defendant under Section 64 of BDA Act. Therefore, in view of the same, contention taken by the defendant that due to non-issuance of statutory notice under Section 64 of BDA Act, the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable is not sustainable. Therefore, I answer the issue No.3 in the negative.
34. ISSUE NO.4:- As stated above, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He also has not proved that he is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has proved his case with pleadings, oral and documentary evidence that he is the absolute owner and possession of the suit schedule property. DW.1 in his cross-examination has admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, he prayed for decree the suit of the plaintiff.
35. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the decisions of our Hon'ble High Court dated 29-06-2016 in W.P.No.9702/2016(LA-BDA) (K.S.M. Shabbir vs. The Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and others) and order dated 27-08- 2012 in W.P. No.25286-25287/2012(LA-BDA) (B.R. Krishnamurthy vs. Bangalore Development Authority). He also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 02-11-2012 in Civil Appeal No.7780/2012 arising out of SLP (C)No.2418/2012 (Tukaram Kana Joshi and others, through Power of Attorney holder vs. M.I.D.C. and others). I have perused the Hon'ble Court decisions with case on hand. In K.S.M. Shabbir case Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that after issuance of preliminary notification, no further proceedings have taken place, final notification is not issued, award is not passed and compensation amount are not disbursed. The above said acquired land is not feasible to form the layout area in question. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court held that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question have lapsed under the provisions of Section 36 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. In the case on hand it is admitted fact that the defendant has acquired the suit schedule property in the year 1984 and issued preliminary and final notifications. The plaintiff also has challenged the said acquisition proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, but Hon'ble Court has not quashed the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka if any lapses in acquisition proceedings and the scheme of the acquisition proceedings was lapsed under Section 36 of the BDA Act. Because this Court has no jurisdiction to deciding about any irregularities and lapses on acquisition procedure.
36. I have perused the above said arguments canvassed by the plaintiff's side with case on hand. As discussed above it is true that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1972 through registered sale deed and he is in possession of the said property. He also established that industrial sheds are established in the suit schedule property and running by the tenants. But, in view of acquisition of suit schedule property by way of preliminary and final notifications, the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. As discussed above, the plaintiff has challenged the above said acquisition proceedings in W.P. No.7623/1989. The Hon'ble Court disposed off the said Writ Petition and directed the plaintiff to approach the Screening Committee for regularization of the unauthorized construction in the suit schedule property. After passing order by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (vide Ex.P32) the plaintiff has approached the Assistant Commissioner of defendant authority for regularization of unauthorized construction over the suit schedule property. But as per the plaintiff till today there is no order passed by the said authority on his application of Ex.P30 and P31. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that if the authority (Screening Committee) have not passed any order on the application filed by the plaintiffs, he can approach the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Because as per the order of the Hon'ble Court he has moved the said application before the Screening Committee. I am of the opinion that in pursuance of preliminary and final notifications of acquisition proceedings, this Court cannot pass a decree that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and restrain the defendant from causing interference in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and demolish the illegal structure over the same. After acquisition of suit schedule property and it is vested with defendant, suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction is not maintainable and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 9 of CPC. In this context I relied upon the decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2013 AIR SCW 2378 (Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another vs. Brijesh Reddy and another) and another decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2017 KAR 1319 (The Bangalore Development Authority vs. Sri Bhagavandas Patil). Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. From looking into the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs. Hence, I answer the issue No.4 in the negative.
37. ISSUE NO. 5:- In view of the findings on the above said issues, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, the transcript corrected by me, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of June, 2018).Digitally signed by RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA
DN: cn=RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA,ou=HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN Date: 2018.06.28 12:11:09 IST (R.Y. SHASHIDHARA), XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 N.A. Ravigopal LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.P-1 Sale deed dtd 27-07-1972 Ex.P-2 Conversion sanctioned certificate Ex.P-3 Official memorandum dt.26-11-1965 Ex.P-4 Land registration sketch Ex.P-5 Assessment extract Ex.P-6 One encumbrance certificate dt.18-04-1987 Ex.P-7 Cc of Mutation registrer Ex.P-8 Cc of RR extract Ex.P-9 Cc of index of land Ex.P-10-14 Cc of tax assessment Ex.P-15 Letter written by KEB dt.07.03.1987 Ex.P-16 No objection certificate Ex.P-17 Letter dt.29.04.1991 Ex.P-18 to 21 4 renewal of licence Ex.P-22 Amount paid receipt Ex.P-23 No objection receipt Ex.P-24 One renewal of license Ex.P-25 Amount paid receipt Ex.P-26 No objection certificate Ex.P-27 License dated 19-04-2000 Ex.P-28 Tax paid receipt dt.27.06.2000 Ex.P-29 License dt 19-04-2000 Ex.P-30 Copy of letter dt 29-05-1989 Ex.P-31 Copy of the application dt 29-05-1989 Ex.P-32 Copy of order passed in WP dated 21-04-1989 Ex.P-33 Acknowledgement Ex.P-34 Copy of the letter Ex.P-35 Miscellaneous notice dt.8-11-1990 Ex.P-36 Letter dt.18-11-1976 Ex.P-37 to 56 20 tax paid receipts
Ex.P-57 to 63 7 sets assessment tax paid receipts Ex.P-64 to 72 9 KEB bills Ex.P-73 Sanction plan Ex.P-74 Another approved plan Ex.P-75 to 82 8 photos Ex.P-83 One CD LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:-
DW.1 G. Sathish
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D-1 Authorization letter dated 17-02-2018 issued by
BDA in favour of DW-1
(R.Y. SHASHIDHARA),
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE.
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is
dismissed.
No costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Vide separate Judgment)
(R.Y. SHASHIDHARA),
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE.