Bangalore District Court
M/S. M. S. Ramaiah Developers And vs The Chief Secretary on 22 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH-75)
Dated this 22nd Day of April 2022
PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.B.A. LL.B.,
LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 25276/2019
PLAINTIFF: 1 M/s. M. S. Ramaiah Developers and
Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its registered office at
No.D-4, Unity Building,
J.C. Road, Bengaluru-560 002.
Rep. By its Director
Sri. M. R. Seetharam,
S/o. Late M. S. Ramaiah
Aged about 62 years.
REP BY: Sri. T.S.Sathish, Advocate
V/s
DEFENDANTS: 1 The Chief Secretary
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhan Soudha,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2 Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board (KIADB),
Khanija Bhavan, 4th & 5th Floor,
East Wing, No.49,
Race Course Road,
Bengaluru-560 001
2
OS.25276/2019
Rep. By its Deputy Commissioner/
Executive Officer.
REP BY: D1: DGP.
D2: RG
Date of Institution of the suit 21/02/2019
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note, suit for
declaration and possession, suit for INJUNCTION SUIT
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording of
23.07.2019
the Evidence.
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 22.04.2022
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 02 01
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for Perpetual Prohibitory Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or anybody through or under them from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the suit property, allotting the said property to 3rd person and cost.
Facts of the case:
3
OS.25276/2019
2. Plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property. It purchased the said property under the registered sale deed dated: 19.06.2003. Before purchasing the said property, it was converted for non- agricultural purpose. Plaintiff contends that adjacent to the suit property it is having larger extent of Lands in different survey numbers. By obtaining necessary approvals and sanction plan, it started construction of Software Tech Park and IT Building in the suit property and also in the suit property belonged to it situate adjacent to the suit property. Plaintiff contends that in the 2nd week of December-2018, the officials of 2 nd defendant visited the suit property and interfered with its possession and enjoyment of the said property. The officials of 2nd defendant were stating that they would allot the suit property to 3rd party. Plaintiff contends that it has issued legal notice dated: 13.12.2018 under section 80(1) of CPC. 1st defendant received the said notice on 14.12.2018 without demur but, the officials of 4 OS.25276/2019 2nd defendant visiting the suit property and interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Plaintiff contends that, if the 2 nd defendant allotted the suit property to 3 rd Parties it will put to untold hardship and inconvenience. Therefore, left with no alternative it has filed the instant Suit. On these and other grounds stated in the plaint plaintiff prays to Decree the suit and to grant the relief of injunction as prayed for.
3. 2nd defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement . 2nd defendant denied the plaint averments in toto except issuance of notice dated:
13.12.2018 under section 80(1) of CPC. 2 nd defendant contends that by initiating acquisition proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Iindustrial Area Development Act 1966( KIAD Act) inter alia it has acquired the suit property. In this regard preliminary notification dated:
9.2.2004 was issued u/s 28(1) of KIAD Act and final notification dated: 19.12.2005 was issued u/s 28(4) of the said Act. At the time of acquisition, suit property was 5 OS.25276/2019 standing in the name of Gangamma and N., Lokesh.
They did not approach to receive compensation of the acquired land ie., Rs. 62,63,934/- therefore, it has deposited the compensation amount in the City Civil & Sessions Judge Court in LAC.No.79/2018. Defendant No.2 contends that after acquisition of the suit property, plaintiff has no manner of any right, title, interest or possession in/over the suit property or any portion thereof. As per section 28(5) of KIAD Act the land vest with the State Government. Therefore plaintiff has no locustandi to file the instant suit and the suit is also barred u/s 9 of CPC. On these and other grounds stated in the written statement, 2nd defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
4. 1st defendant the Government of Karnataka though appeared through the Ld. DGP, did not contest the suit by filing the written statement .
5. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the following Issues were formulated on 16.09.2019 :
6
OS.25276/2019
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves his possession over the suit property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference by the defendants as alleged in the plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for?
4. What order or decree?
6. Plaintiff examined its Attorney Holder as PW.1 and produced documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Defendant No.2 examined the special Land Acquisition Officer as DW.1 and produced documents marked at Ex.D1 to Ex.D6.
7. Heard the arguments on both side. The counsel for Defendant No.2 in addition to submitting oral arguments filed Written Arguments.
8. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative 7 OS.25276/2019 Issue No.2: In the Affirmative Issue No.3: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.4: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS:
9. Issue No.1: PW.1 plaintiff N. Venkatesh , the attorney holder of plaintiff in his examination in chief has reiterated and reaffirmed the plaint averments. He produced the documents marked at Ex.P. 1 GPA, Ex.P. 2 certified copy of of sale deed dated: 19.06.2003, Ex.P. 3 khata certificate, Ex.P. 4 tax assessment extract, Ex.P. 5 conversiion order dt: 17.06.2003, Ex.P. 6 tax paid receipt, Ex.P. 7 Encumbrance certificate , Ex.P. 8 approved plan, Ex.P. 9 notice dt: 13.12.2008, Ex.P. 10 postal receipt, Ex.P. 11 covering letter dt: 06.11.2019, Ex.P. 12 letter dt:
09.09.2003 and Ex.P. 13 gazette(corrigendum) notification dated: 9.5.2012.
10. DW.1 A.B.Vijay Kumar, the Spl.Land Acquisition Officer of KIAD in his examination in chief has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments of the written statement . 8
OS.25276/2019 He produced Ex.D. 1 certified copy of preliminary notification dt: 02.02.2004, Ex.D. 2 final notification dt:
19.12.2005, Ex.D. 3 court deposit details, Ex.D. 4 certified copy of order sheet in WP.No.40980/2018 and certified copy of petition in W.P.No.40980/2018 and Ex.D. 6 copy of report dated:29.05.2006
11. A perusal of cross-examination of PW.1 and DW.1 would show that defendant No.2 has not disputed the documents produced by the plaintiff and marked at Ex.P. 1 to 13 and plaintiff has not disputed the Ex.D. 1 to 6, the documents produced by DW.1.
12. The Testimony of PW.1 and the recitals of Ex.P1 certified copy of the Sale Deed dt 19.06.2003, Ex.P3 Khatha Extract, Ex.P4- Assessment Extract, Ex.P5 -
Conversion Order, Ex.P6 - Tax Paid Receipts and Ex.P7 - Encumbrance certificate would support the case of the Plaintiff that, under Ex.P2- Sale Deed dated 19.06.2003 it purchased the Suit Property which was converted for Industrial Purpose as per Ex.P5 Conversion Order Dtd: 9
OS.25276/2019 17-06-2003.
13. As I have already stated above, defendant No.2 is not seriously disputing the documents produced by plaintiff regarding purchase of Suit Property and also about the conversion of the said property for Industrial Purpose. The contention of the defendant No.2 is that, it has acquired the suit property by issuing Ex.D1 preliminary Notification dt: 09.02.2004 and final notification dt. 19.12.2005. DW.1 has stated that, in view of the suit property was acquired by KIADB the said property vest with State Government, therefore the plaintiff has no manner of any right, title, interest or possession over the said property.
14. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has strenuously contended that, the Land in Sy. No. 23/1 of Kariyamana Agrahara Village, is totally measuring 3 acre 21 guntas. In the said 3 acre 21 guntas of land under Ex.P5 Conversion order dtd: 17-06-2003, 1 acre 20 guntas of Land was converted for Industrial Purpose. 10
OS.25276/2019 Thereafter the KIADB has issued Ex.D1- preliminary Notification for the acquisition of the remaining 2 acres 1 gunta of Land in Sy.No.23/1. He submits that, in Ex.D2 final Notification it is stated that the KIADB has acquired only 1 acre 20 guntas of Land including 9 guntas of Kharab Land in Sy.No.23/1. The measurement and boundaries of the acquired Land stated in Preliminary Notification and final Notification are different. Therefore, 2nd Defendant after conducting spot inspection issued Ex.P13 - corrigendum stating the extent and boundaries of acquired Land. From Ex.P13- corrigendum it is clear that, the Government has acquired Western portion of 1 acre 20 guntas of Land in Sy.No.23/1. Under Ex.P2 Sale Deed plaintiff purchased the Eastern portion of Land in Sy.No. 23/1. Further he submits that from the documents produced by defendant No.2 would show that it has acquired Agricultural Land in Sy.No. 23/1 belonged to Plaintiff's vendor. The 2nd Defendant has not acquired the suit property which was converted for Industrial 11 OS.25276/2019 Purpose as per Ex.P5 Order dt: 17.06.2003. Further he submits that, plaintiff by obtaining approval and consent from 2nd defendant constructed Software Tech Park and IT building in the Suit Property and the Lands situate adjacent to the suit property belong to it. The construction was completed and 2nd defendant has issued Ex.P11(a) Occupancy Certificate. Therefore, the 2nd defendant is estopped from contending that, it has acquired the suit property. He submits that, the material on record would not support the contention of the 2 nd defendant that, it has acquired the suit property.
15. Plaintiff has produced Ex.P11(a) Occupancy Certificate dated 26.02.2018, Ex.P11(b) Approval for Establishment of Software Technology Park Inter-alia in Sy. No. 23/1 of Kariyamana Agrahara Village and Ex.P11(c) the letter dt. 29.04.2019 written by the Development Officer Executive Engineer -II of KIADB to the Land acquisition Officer - II. Plaintiff has obtained Ex.P11(a) to (c) by giving application to 2 nd Defendant 12 OS.25276/2019 under Right to Information Act. Ex.P12 is the approval dated 09.09.2003 given by managing Director of Karnataka Udyog Mitra permitting the Plaintiff to install Software Technology Part inter - alia in the suit property. The recitals of Ex.P11(a) and (b) and Ex.P12 would support the contention of the Plaintiff that by obtaining permission from 2nd Defendant, the KIADB it has constructed Software Tech Park and IT building Inter - alia in the Suit Property.
16. DW.1 in the cross examination has stated that, he has no objection to Ex.P11(a) and (b) issued by the Development Officer of KIADB in favour of plaintiff. DW-1 in the cross examination has stated that before filing the written statement in this case he called para wise remarks from the Development Officer of KIADB and accordingly Ex.P11(c) para wise remarks was submitted. In para No.3 of Ex.P-11(c) para wise remarks, the Development Officer of KIADB has stated that by obtaining approval from KIADB the Plaintiff has 13 OS.25276/2019 constructed Software Technology Park inter - alia in the suit property. For convenience para No.3 of Ex.P11(c) para wise remarks is extracted below and it reads thus.
State Level Single Window Agency Committee in its 232nd meeting held on 18.08.2003 clear the project as per the land proposed by promoter M/s. M. S. Ramaiah Developers and Builders to establish Software Technology Park in a land measuring 23A- 26G in Sy.Nos.23/1, 23/2,24/1,24/2, 25/1, 25/2, 26/1, 26/2 of Kariyammana Agrahara Village and Sy.Nos.14/P6, 15/1A, 15/1B, 15/1C, 23/1, 23/2, 23/3 of Kadubeesanahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
The KIADB notified an extent of 20A-08 ¼ G under sectioin 3(1) of C1 172 SPQ 2013, Bangalore Dated: 11.06.2013 for establishment of Software Technology Park . And an extent of 2A-09G of land in Sy.No.25/2 of Kariyammana Agrahara Village has been acquired and allotted to M/s. M.S.Ramaiah Developers and Builders by the Board.
The KIADB has approved the Development Plan & Building Plan for the above said Sy.Nos. With an extent of 20A-08 ¼G for the establishment of Software Technology Park on dated: 21.01.2014 (Plan enclcosed).
As per amendment notification No.CI 191 SPQ 2012 Bangalore dated: 08.05.2012 an extent of land 1A-20G in Sy.No.23/1 of Kariyammana Agrahara Vilalge has been earmarked in submitted Development plan along with the other Sy.Nos. 23/2, 24/1, 24/2, 25/1, 25/2, 26/2 of Kariyammana Agrahara village and Sy. Nos. 14/P6, 15/1A,15/1B, 15/1C, 23/1, 23/2, 23/3 of Kadubeesanahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
The allottee reserved the land in Sy.No.23/1 of Kariyammana Agrahara village without approval form the KIADB.
The KIADB hsd notified for acquisition for an extent of 2A-01G in Sy.No.23/1 in its notification 14 OS.25276/2019 No. CI No.255 SPQ 2001, Bangalore dated:
09.02.2004 under section 28(1). And notified an extent of 1A-20G in its notification No.CI 126 SPQ 2005 Bangalore Dated: 19.12.2005 under section 28(4). As per final notification schedule o boundaries of extent 1A-20G in Sy.No.23/1 has been changed as per amendment notification No.CI 191 SPQ 2012 Bangalore dated: 08.05.2012.
17. The recitals of above extracted para wise remarks would support the case of the plaintiff that it has put up software Tech Park and IT building in the suit property. DW1 has stated that at the time of filing written statement despite he was having EX.P 11( C) parawise remarks he has not stated about the information given by the Development Officer of KIADB in the written statement regarding establishment of Software Tech Park in the suit property. From this it is clear that Defendant No.2 filed written statement by suppressing the true facts provided by the Development Officer of KIADB to him regarding existence of Software Tech Park in the suit property.
18. A perusal of Ex.P-2 would show that, plaintiff purchased the suit property under the registered sale 15 OS.25276/2019 deed Dtd: 19-6-2003. Ex.D-1 preliminary notification was made on 9-2-2004 i.e., 8 months after the plaintiff purchased the suit property. As contended by the 2 nd defendant if it would have acquired the suit property in the preliminary and final notification the name of the plaintiff would have been shown in column No.2 and 3 of the notifications, which were reserved to mention the name of the Kathadar and the occupant. The fact that, despite the plaintiff purchased the suit property 8 months prior to the issuance of Ex.D-1 preliminary notification and 30 months prior to the issuance of Ex.D- 2 final notification its name is not shown either in Column No.2 or 3 of the said notifications which were reserved to mention the name of the kathadar and occupant would support the contention of the plaintiff that, the 2nd defendant has not acquired the suit property.
19. DW-1 in the Cross examination has stated that, after issuance of Ex.D-1 preliminary notification and before issuance of Ex.D-2 final notification, a sketch was 16 OS.25276/2019 prepared showing the location of acquired land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas(including 9 guntas of karab land) and he has no objection to produce the said sketch. At the time of giving evidence 2nd defendant has brought the file relating to the acquisition of land in Sy.No.23/1. Though he brought the said file he did not produce the sketch alleged to have been prepared in between the date of issuance of preliminary and final notifications. DW-1 has stated that, 2nd defendant took the possession of the acquired land on 29-5-2006. 2 nd defendant by perusing the file brought by him relating to the acquisition of land in Sy.No.23/1 has stated the above fact. When the learned counsel for the plaintiff questioned DW.1 whether any document was made while taking possession of acquired land he produced a copy of the report Dtd:
29.5.2006. The said report reads thus:
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಪೂರ್ವ ತಾಲ್ಲೂ ಕು, ವರ್ತೂರು
ಹೋಬಳಿ, ಅಮಾನಿ ಬೆಳ್ಳಂದೂರು ಖಾನೆ ಕರಿಯಮ್ಮ ನ
ಅಗ್ರಹಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಕಾಡುಬೀಸನಹಳ್ಳಿ ಗ್ರಾಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿನ
ಜಮೀನುಗಳನ್ನು ಕೆ.ಐ.ಎ.ಡಿ. ಮಂಡಳಿಗೆ
17
OS.25276/2019
ಸ್ವಾಧೀನಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು , ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧೀನವಾಗಿರುವ ಜಮೀನಿನ ಖಾತೆದಾರರುಗಳು ವಿಧಿ28(6)ರ ನೋಟೀಸುಗಳನ್ನು ತಿರಸ್ಕ ರಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಜಮೀನಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಮಹಜರ್ನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ಮಹಜರ್ನ ಲ್ಲಿ ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧೀನವಾಗಿರುವ ಕೆಲವು ಜಮೀನುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಕಟ್ಟ ಡಗಳು ಕಟ್ಟು ತ್ತಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಆದುದರಿಂದ ವಿಶೇಷ ಭೂಸ್ವಾಧೀನಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಮೌಖಿಕ ಆದೇಶದ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಕೆ.ಐ.ಎ.ಡಿ. ಕಾಯಿದೆ ವಿಧಿ 28(7) ರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಗ್ರಾಮಗಳ ಗ್ರಾಮಸ್ಥ ರ ಮಹಜರ್ ನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಮಂಡಳಿಯ ಸುಪರ್ಧಿಗೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ 9-5-2006 ಪಡೆಯಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂಬ ಅಂಶವನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಮುಂದಿನ ಸೂಕ್ತ ಕ್ರಮಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದೆ.
20. The recitals of above report would not support the statement of DW.1 that on 29.5.2006 2 nd defendant took the possession of vacant land. From Ex.P11 (a to c) the documents issued by the 2nd defendant it is evident that plaintiff has installed Software Tech Park in the suit property. DW.1 in the Cross Examination recorded on 6.4.2022 has stated that 2 months prior to the date of his cross-examination, he visited to the suit property and at that time, it was a vacant land. Therefore, according to 18 OS.25276/2019 DW.1, he visited to the acquired land in/or about the month of February-2022. He stated that at the time of his visit to the acquired land, he noticed a transformer installed by KPTCL in the land in Sy.No.23/1. He stated that he do not know whether the said transformer was installed in the acquired land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas or in the remaining portion of land in Sy.No.23/1. This statement of DW-1 would give an indication that, he is not definite in Sy.No.23/1 which portion of the land was acquired. DW-1 in the Cross examination at page No.14 has stated that, in the land in Sy.No. 23/1 the 2nd defendant is claiming right over the vacant land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas (by mistake stated as, 1 acre 11 guntas) and the 2nd defendant will not claim right over the portion of property in the said survey number having transformer and buildings. As I have already stated above the recitals of Ex.P-11(a to c) would show that, plaintiff has put up Software Tech Park and IT building in the suit property and on 26-2-2018 the 2 nd defendant has 19 OS.25276/2019 issued occupancy certificate permitting the plaintiff to occupy the Software Tech Park consisting of 3 wings i.e., Wing-A to C and IT building consisting of 4 common basements plus ground plus ten upper floors and another building consisting of 4 common basements plus ground floor. The say of DW-1 that, the acquired land is an vacant land and the 2nd defendant is not claiming right, title, interest and possession over the portion of the land in Sy.No.23/1 in which buildings and transformers were installed would support the contention of plaintiff that the suit property was not acquired by KIADB and the land acquired by KIADB is the remaining portion of land in Sy. No.23/1 of Kariyamma Agrahara Village. In view of my aforesaid findings I hold that, defendant No.2 failed to prove that, it has acquired the suit property by issuing Ex.D1 and 2 notifications, therefore the said land vest with government and plaintiff has no semblance of right over the suit property and it is also not in possession of the said property. On the other hand the oral and 20 OS.25276/2019 documentary evidence available on record particularly Ex.P8 and11 (a to c) the documents issued by 2 nd defendant would support the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is in its possession and it has established Software Tech Park and IT Buildings in the said property. In view of the above I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
21. ISSUE NO.2: Pw.1 has stated that in the 2nd week of December 2018 and also on 20-02-2019 the officials of 2nd defendant came to the suit property and interfered with its possession and enjoyment of the said property. Defendant No.2 contends that the suit property is an acquired land, therefore Plaintiff has no manner of any right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. The very contention taken by Defendant No.2 would support the contention of the Plaintiff that the officials of defendant No.2 are interfering with its possession and enjoyment of suit property by falsely contending that it has acquired the suit property. In view 21 OS.25276/2019 of the above I hold that Plaintiff proved the interference by the officials of 2nd Defendant with its possession and enjoyment of suit property. Accordingly I answer Issue No.2 in the affirmative.
22. ISSUE No.3 In view of my reasons and findings on Issue No.1 and 2 plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Injunction restraining defendants from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of suit property i.e., a portiton of land in Sy.No.23/1 in which Software Tech park and IT building are existing.
23. Plaintiff is claiming the relief of Injunction restraining the defendants from allotting the suit property to 3rd party. From the material on record would show that, the suit property is the personal property of plaintiff purchased under Ex.P-2 Sale deed Dtd: 19-6-2003. The suit property was converted for Industrial use. To construct building for Industrial use, permission is to be taken from 2nd defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff took permission and also Ex.P-8 Sanction plan from 2 nd 22 OS.25276/2019 defendant and constructed IT buildings and Software Tech park in the suit property. Merely because 2 nd defendant given permission to install Software Tech park and IT buildings in the suit property it will not get right over the said property. Therefore defendants have no manner of any right over the personal property of plaintiff. Therefore, defendants have no right to grant the suit property to 3rd person. Therefore, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to seek the relief of Injunction restraining defendants from allotting the suit property to the 3rd person. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction restraining defendants from allotting the suit property to the 3rd person.
24. A perusal of Ex.P-13 Corrigendum/ gazette notification dtd: 9-5-2012 would show that, the 2 nd defendant noticing mistakes in the measurement and boundaries of acquired land in SY.No. 23/1 stated in Ex.D-1 and 2 Preliminary and final notifications issued Ex.P-13 Corrigendum/gazette notification. In ExP-13 it is 23 OS.25276/2019 stated that, the said Corrigendum was issued after measurement of acquired land in Sy.No.23/1. In Ex.P-13 Corrigendum it is clearly stated that, the 2 nd defendant has acquired the western portion of the land in Sy.No.23/1. The suit property is the eastern portion of the land in Sy.No.23/1. Therefore, the Ex.P-13 Corrigendum made it very clear that, the suit property is not a acquired land.
25. A perusal of Ex.D-4 and 5 the order sheet and Writ petition of WP No.40980/2018 would show that, after issuance of Ex.P-13 Corrigendum/gazette notification the children of Smt. Gangamma the original owner of the land in Sy.No.23/1 filed the said Writ Petition challenging the validity of Ex.D-1, 2 and P-13 Preliminary, final and Corrigendum notifications issued by 2nd defendant for the acquisition of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.23/1 and the said petition is pending for consideration in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. When such is the case, the Injunction order which the 24 OS.25276/2019 plaintiff is entitled in view of my aforesaid findings is subject to decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 40980/2018. Accordingly I answer Issue No.3 partly in affirmative.
26. ISSUE No.4 : In view of my reasons and findings on Issues No.1 to 3 I pass the following:
ORDER Plaintiffs' suit is partly decreed. Defendants are restrained from interfering with Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
The injunction order is subject to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.40980/2018 (LA-KIADB).
No order as to costs.
********** (Dictated to the Typist in the open court, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 nd day of April 2022) (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 75) 25 OS.25276/2019 ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 - N. Venkatesh LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P. 1 GPA, Ex.P. 2 Certified copy of of sale deed dated:
19.06.2003, Ex.P. 3 khata certificate, Ex.P. 4 Tax assessment extract, Ex.P. 5 Conversion order dt: 17.06.2003, Ex.P. 6 Tax paid receipt, Ex.P. 7 Encumbrance certificate , Ex.P. 8 Approved plan, Ex.P. 9 Notice dt: 13.12.2008, Ex.P. 10 Postal receipt, Ex.P. 11 Covering letter dt: 06.11.2019, Ex.P. 12 Letter dt: 09.09.2003 Ex.P.13 Gazette (corrigendum) notification dated:
9.5.2012.
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 A.B.Vijay Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D. 1 Certified copy of preliminary notification dt:
02.02.2004, 26 OS.25276/2019 Ex.D. 2 Final notification dt: 19.12.2005, Ex.D. 3 Court deposit details, Ex.D. 4 Certified copy of order sheet in WP.No.40980/2018, Ex.D. 5 Certified copy of petition in W.P.No.40980/2018 Ex.D. 6 Ccopy of report dated:29.05.2006 (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 75)