Bangalore District Court
In Sri.Narayanapaa vs In All The Bengaluru Development on 20 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY (CCH No.8)
Dated this the 20th day of April 2016.
PRESENT:
S.V.KULKARNI, B.Com., LLB(Spl)
XI Addl.City Civil Judge, B'lore city.
O.S.No.3372/11, 3373/2011 & 3374/2011
Plaintiff in Sri.Narayanapaa,
O.S. No. 3372/2011: S/o.Muniyappa,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o.No.136, in Sy.No.148,
Pilla Reddy Nagar,
Bangalore-560 043,
Rept. By his G.P.A holder
Sri.P.Prabhakar Reddy
Plaintiff in Smt. Sampangiyamma
O.S. No. 3373/2011: Aged 55 years,
W/o Sri.Krishnappa,
R/oDoor No.135, 2nd "A" Cross,
Pillareddynagara,
Banasawadi post,
Bengaluru-560 043,
Represented by her Power of
Attorney Holder,
Sri.P.Laxminarayana Reddy.
Plaintiff in Smt.Rukmini,
O.S. No.3374/2011: D/o.Late Subbaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
2 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
R/o.No.171, 1st Cross, Pilla
Reddy Nagar, Banasawadi Post,
Bangalore-560 043,
Rept. By her G.P.A holder
Sri.P.Prabhakar Reddy
(Sri.K.Sridhar advocate for
plaintiff in all the cases)
: Vs :
Defendants in all the Bengaluru Development
cases:- Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bengaluru,
Represented by its
Commissioner
(Sri. K.S.N.R. advocate for
defendant in all the cases
Date of the institution of suit in all the 13.05.2011
cases:
Nature of the suit in all the cases : Injunction suit
Date of the commencement of 4.7.2012
recording of the evidence in all the
cases :
Date on which the judgment 20.4.2016
was pronounced in all the cases :
Total duration in all the cases: Year Months Days
04 09 07
XI Addl.City Civil Judge,
B'lore city.
3 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
COMMON JUDGMENT
O.S. No. 3372 of 2011
The plaintiff has filed this suit through his GPA holder
Sri. P.Prabhakar Reddy for the relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendant BDA and its officials, servants, etc.,
from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.
2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint briefly
stated as follows:-
SCHEDULE
All the piece and parcel of the house property bearing site
no.136, formed in Sy.No.148, katha No.289/4, 148/36 (as per
form no.9 & 10) situated at Pillareddy Nagar, Chikkabanaswadi
village, Krishnarajapura Hobki, Bangalore East Taluk,
(erstwhile, Bangalore south Taluk) now comes under the
jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP),
Bangalore, site measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to
South: 30 feet in all measuring 1200 sq.ft. and bounded on
East by: Temple & Vacant land
West by: Road,
North by: Site No.135
South by: Road
4 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Plaintiff is the owner and in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property bearing No. 136, 2nd Cross,
Pillareddy Nagar, Banaswadi Post, Bengaluru , which is
morefully described in the schedule. This property herein after
referred to as suit schedule property. It is the case of the
plaintiff that that Government has acquired land Sy.No.148 of
Chikkabanaswadi village, where sites have been formed by the
Government and allotted to poor persons, the plaintiff is among
them. The Chairman of the Village Panchayath namely late
Pilla Reddy was instrumental in allotting sites in favour of
poor persons. Thereafter the area is now named after him as
Pilla Reddy Nagar. Plaintiff is the absolute owner in
possession and enjoyment of house property No.136 in
Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village, wherein plaintiff was
issued with Hakkupathra by BDA office on 26.12.1979.
Thereafter the Village Panchayath granting permission to put
up construction. Accordingly, house has been constructed .
Village Panchayath has also given NOC for obtaining power
supply. Plaintiff's name also entered by the BBMP records
and katha has been issued in his name. Plaintiff is paying tax
to the suit schedule property. Plaintiff further alleged that
Sy.No.148 is Government land and Government has allotted
residential sites to various persons and almost all the persons
have put up construction and it is fully developed land/area
5 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
and Sy.No.148 is not acquired by BDA and BDA has no
authority or any right over Sy.No. 148 of Chikkabanaswadi
village However, officials of BDA are trying to interfere with
plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property
allegedly on the ground that plaintiff never encroached the
BDA land and he has within the area, which was allotted to
him.
On 9.5.2011 the officials of the BDA came to the spot
made an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property and the plaintiff and others have
resisted their illegal action and the officials went away and
they are likely to came again. The plaintiff also made an
attempt to lodge police complaint against officials of BDA. But
police have not entertained the complaint on the ground that
this dispute is a civil in nature. The defendant and its
officials have no right to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
Therefore, defendant cannot make any claim in respect of suit
schedule property. Plaintiff has alleged cause of action for the
suit arose on 9.5.2011 when the officials of BDA made an
attempt to demolish the house in Sy.No.148. Hence, plaintiff
constrained to file this suit against defendant/BDA for
permanent injunction relief.
6 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement
contending inter-alia as under:-
Suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious
against this defendant and the same is liable to be dismissed .
Plaintiff has not issued any notice under Sec. 64 of BDA Act
1976. Hence, on this ground alone, the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
Defendant denied that plaintiff is the owner of suit
schedule property carved out in Sy.No.148 of
Chikkabanaswadi village under the alleged Hakkupathra
dated 26.12.1979. Hence, defendant denied the lawful
possession of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.
Defendant has admitted that it had not acquired Sy.No.148
of Chikkabanaswadi village. But defendant has contending
that land Sy.No.156 of Chikkabanaswadi village, which is
adjacent to Sy.No.148 measuring 5 acres 27 guntas , which
has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Banaswadi
Scheme between "Old Madras Road and Banaswadi Road Lay-
out" and published preliminary notification dated 3.11.1977
followed by the final notification dated 13.11.1980 and award
has been passed, which has been duly approved by the
competent authority on 21.1.1983 and after the possession
has been taken over of the acquired land in Sy.No.156 and
7 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
on 5.2.1983 for formation of layout. Subsequently layout has
been allotted to the general public. The compensation
amount in respect of acquired land has been deposited on
civil court for adjudication under Sec. 30 and 31(2) of Land
Acquisition Act. The Notification under Sec. 16(2) of Land
Acquisition Act had been issued confirming the general
public for having taken over possession of the acquired land
referred above. Hence, to the defendant/BDA, the plaintiff
herein knowing fully well that land Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi
village is BDA notified and acquiring the property by taking
advantage of the alleged documents in respect of the
acquired land is trying to encroached upon the BDA property
in Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village and the same was
prevented and put up barbed wire fending and as on today,
the suit schedule property is in possession of BDA. Hence, in
view of these facts, the plaintiff has suppressed the material
facts and filed this false suit against the defendant to obtain
interim order and in fact, plaintiff has no right, title or
interest over the suit schedule property. Defendant has denied
the alleged cause of action. Further defendant contended that
plaintiff has not made proper party to the suit, who acquired
the property in question. Hence, defendant/BDA on this
defense resisted this suit filed by the plaintiff and pray for
dismissal of this suit.
8 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
3. Based upon these pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are framed in this case on 10.1.2012:-
O.S. No. 3372/2011
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful
possession over suit property as on date of
suit as alleged?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the
defendant has illegally interfered with his
lawful possession and attempted to demolish
the existing structure therein as alleged?
3. Whether the defendant proves that it has
acquired the suit schedule property and the
acquired land vests with it as alleged?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction against the defendant
as prayed?
5. What reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled?
4. In order to prove their respective cases, parties have
adducing evidence, wherein plaintiff's P.A.Holder examined in
this case as P.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.39
and closed his side. Defendant has got examined its
Superintendent, Land Acquisition section of BDA is examined
as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 and R.Ram Prasad
Assistant Engineer No.2, North Sub-Division, BDA is
examined as D.W.2 and Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.9 are marked
9 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
through this witness. Hence with this evidence, defendant
evidence is closed.
O.S. No. 3373 of 2011
The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendant/BDA in
respect of suit schedule property as described in the
schedu7le annexed to the plaint and plaintiff has prayed for a
decree in respect of permanent injunction and cost of the suit.
5. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint briefly
stated as follows:-
SCHEDULE
House property situated at No.135, 2nd cross,
Pillareddynagara, Banasawadi Post, Bangalore-560 043,
measuring East to West 40 ft. and north to south 30 ft.
bounded on:
East by: Temple and vacant place
West by : Road
North by : Huts and vacant place and
South by : Site No.136
With 2 ½ square house with a red-oxide flooring, brick
and cement walls with jungle wooden doors with all basic
amentias.
10 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Government has
formed residential sites in the year 1980 in Sy.No.148 of
Chikkabanaswadi village for the purpose of allotment of site
No.135 was allotted to plaintiff's husband namely Krishnappa
by issuance of house property dated 26.12.1979 that the
Chairman of Village Panchayath namely late Pilla Reddy was
instrumental in getting sites in favour of poor persons.
Therefore, the area has been called Pillreddynagara. After
allotment of sites, the panchayath has given permission to put
up construction of house over the allotted site. Accordingly,
house has been constructed. Plaintiff has paid up to date tax.
Plaintiff's husband executed a registered gift deed dated
14.12.2010 directing the property in favour of plaintiff.
The plaintiff further alleged that the BDA has not
acquired Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village and house
constructed by the plaintiff comes within the jurisdiction of
Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village. However officials of
BDA are falsely making a claim that the plaintiff is
encroaching upon their land Sy.No.156. But plaintiff denied
the allegations of encroachment of the land Sy.No.156.
Absolutely there was no ground for the BDA to make claim in
respect of houses situated in Sy.No. 148 of Banasaawadi
village. It is alleged by the plaintiff that on 9.5.2011, when the
11 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
officials of BDA came to the suit schedule property and made
an attempt to demolish the house of the plaintiff, the plaintiff
resisted their illegal acts and the officials of BDA went away
with a threat to return to the spot again . The plaintiff has
made an attempt to file complaint. However, police have not
entertained the complaint on the ground that the dispute is of
civil in nature. Hence, plaintiff constrained to file this suit for
permanent injunction .
7. The defendant appeared and filed written statement
contending inter-alia as under:-
Suit filed by the is false, frivolous and vexatious against
this defendant and the same is liable to be dismissed .
Plaintiff has not issued any notice under Sec. 64 of BDA Act
1976. Hence, on this ground alone, the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
Defendant denied that plaintiff is the owner of suit
schedule property carved out in Sy.No.148 of
Chikkabanaswadi village and alleged Hakkupathra dated
26.12.1979. Hence, defendant denied the lawful possession of
the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Defendant
has admitted that it had not acquired Sy.No.148 of
Chikkabanaswadi village. But defendant has contending that
12 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
land Sy.No.156 of Chikkabanaswadi village, which is adjacent
to Sy.No.148 measuring 5 acres 27 guntas , which has been
acquired for the purpose of formation of Banaswadi Scheme
between "Old Madras Road and Banaswadi Road Lay-out" and
published preliminary notification dated 3.11.1977 followed by
the final notification dated 13.11.1980 and award has been
passed, which has been duly approved by the competent
authority on 21.1.1983 and after the possession has been
taken over of the acquired land in Sy.No.156 and on
5.2.1983 for formation of layout. Subsequently layout has been
allotted to the general public. The compensation amount in
respect of acquired land has been deposited on civil court for
adjudication under Sec. 30 and 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
The Notification under Sec. 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act had
been issued confirming the general public for having taken
over possession of the acquired land referred above. Hence,
to the defendant/BDA, the plaintiff herein knowing fully well
that land Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village is BDA notified
and acquiring the property by taking advantage of the
alleged documents in respect of the acquired land is trying to
encroached upon the BDA property in Sy.No.156 of
Banasaawadi village and the same was prevented and put up
barbed wire fending and as on today, the suit schedule
property is in possession of BDA. Hence, in view of these facts,
the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and filed this
13 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
false suit against the defendant to obtain interim order and
in fact, plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit
schedule property. Defendant has denied the alleged cause of
action. Further defendant contended that plaintiff has not
made proper party to the suit, who acquired the property in
question. Hence, defendant/BDA on this defense resisted this
suit filed by the plaintiff and pray for dismissal of this suit.
8. Based upon these pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are framed in this case on 10.1.2012:-
O.S. No. 3373/2011
1. Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful
possession over suit property as on date of
suit as alleged?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the
defendant has illegally interfered with her
lawful possession and attempted to demolish
the existing structure therein as alleged?
3. Whether the defendant proves that it has
acquired the suit schedule property and the
acquired land vests with it as alleged?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction against the defendant
as prayed?
5. What reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled?
14 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
9. In order to prove their respective cases, parties have
adducing evidence, wherein plaintiff' examined in this case as
P.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.39 and closed
his side. Defendant has got examined its Superintendent,
Land Acquisition section of BDA is examined as D.W.1 and
got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 and R.Ram Prasad Assistant
Engineer No.2, North Sub-Division, BDA is examined as
D.W.2 and Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.9 are marked through this
witness. Hence with this evidence, defendant evidence is
closed.
O.S. No. 3374 of 2011
10. The plaintiff has filed this suit against
defendant/BDA for permanent injunction restraining the
defendant and its officials not to interfere in suit schedule
property over the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule
property and cost of this suit.
11. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint
briefly stated as follows:-
15 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
SCHEDULE
All the piece and parcel of the house property bearing
house site no.171 in property No.148, Katha No.171/148, (as
per form No.9) & No.189/4/127/171/148 (as per form no.10),
situated at Pilla Reddy Nagar, Chikkabanaswadi Village,
Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, (erstwhile,
Bangalore South Taluk) now comes under the jurisdiction of
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike ), Bangalore, site measuring East to West:
40 feet and North to South: 30 feet in all measuring 1200 sq.ft.
and bounded on
East by: Site No.1
West by: Road,
North by: Road,
South by: Site No.172
12. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Government of
Karnataka had formed sites in the year 1980 to allot the
said sites to poor persons in commemoration of 28th
Anniversary of Independence Day on 13.4.1979 in Sy.No.148
of Banasaawadi village . Accordingly, suit schedule property
was allotted in the name of plaintiff's mother Smt. Muttamma
by issue of Hakkupathra dated 8.2.1980 . Thereafter Village
Panchayath has granted permission to put up construction
over site No.171 as per licence dated 27.9.1981. The Village
16 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Panchayath also given No Objection Certificate to obtain
electricity connection dated 27.9.1981. Plaintiffs mother name
is entered the house list maintained by the Village
Panchayath. Accordingly, a house has been constructed and
plaintiff and her mother are residing in the suit schedule
property. Later this area is made over to corporation
jurisdiction and corporation authority have collected the taxes
even for the year 2010-2011. Therefore, it is clear that site has
been validly allotted in favour of mother of plaintiff and house
has been constructed thereon and her family members are
residing in the house. Smt. Muttamma, the mother of plaintiff
has donated the suit schedule property to plaintiff and has
executed registered gift deed dated 14.12.2010. This
plaintiff became owner and in possession of suit schedule
property by virtue of registered gift deed.
Sy.No.148 of Banasaawadi village is a Government land
and sites have been formed given to needy and poor people.
All the persons, who have allotted sites have put up
construction and it is fully developed area now and almost all
houses have been come up in the entire area of 3 acres 14
guntas of land. Defendant has not acquired Sy.No.148 of
Banasaawadi village and defendant has no right, title and
interest in over the property bearing No.148. The officials of
defendant are interfering in the possession of plaintiff under
17 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
the guise of plaintiff has encroached upon defendants property
Sy.No.156 of Banasawadi village . But plaintiff denied
allegations of encroachment in Sy.No.156 of
Chikkabanaswadi village. It is alleged by the plaintiff that
defendants and its officials on 9.5.2011 came to the spot and
made an attempt to demolish the house, which was resisted
by the plaintiff. The officials of defendants are likely to repeat
their illegal act of action in near future also. Though plaintiff
made attempt to lodge police complaint, but police have not
registered the case stating that it is dispute to be decided by
the civil court. Plaintiff has alleged cause of action dated
9.5.2011 against defendant. Hence, plaintiff constrained to file
this suit against defendant/BDA.
13. The defendant appeared and filed written statement
contending inter-alia as under:-
Suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious
against this defendant and the same is liable to be dismissed .
Plaintiff has not issued any notice under Sec. 64 of BDA Act
1976. Hence, on this ground alone, the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
Defendant denied that the plaintiff is the owner of suit
schedule property carved out in Sy.No.148 of
18 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Chikkabanaswadi village and alleged Hakkupathra dated
26.12.1979. Hence, defendant denied the lawful possession of
the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Defendant
has admitted that it had not acquired Sy.No.148 of
Chikkabanaswadi village. But defendant has contending that
land Sy.No.156 of Chikkabanaswadi village, which is adjacent
to Sy.No.148 measuring 5 acres 27 guntas , which has been
acquired for the purpose of formation of Banaswadi Scheme
between "Old Madras Road and Banaswadi Road Lay-out" and
published preliminary notification dated 3.11.1977 followed by
the final notification dated 13.11.1980 and award has been
passed, which has been duly approved by the competent
authority on 21.1.1983 and after the possession has been
taken over of the acquired land in Sy.No.156 and on
5.2.1983 for formation of layout. Subsequently layout has been
allotted to the general public. The compensation amount in
respect of acquired land has been deposited on civil court for
adjudication under Sec. 30 and 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
The Notification under Sec. 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act had
been issued confirming the general public for having taken
over possession of the acquired land referred above. Hence,
to the defendant/BDA, the plaintiff herein knowing fully well
that land Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village is BDA notified
and acquiring the property by taking advantage of the
alleged documents in respect of the acquired land is trying to
19 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
encroached upon the BDA property in Sy.No.156 of
Banasaawadi village and the same was prevented and put up
barbed wire fending and as on today, the suit schedule
property is in possession of BDA. Hence, in view of these facts,
the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and filed this
false suit against the defendant to obtain interim order and
in fact, plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit
schedule property. Defendant has denied the alleged cause of
action. Further defendant contended that plaintiff has not
made proper party to the suit, who acquired the property in
question. Hence, defendant/BDA on this defense resisted this
suit filed by the plaintiff and pray for dismissal of this suit.
14. Based upon these pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are framed in this case on 10.1.2012:-
O.S. No. 3374/2011
1. Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful
possession over suit property as on date of
suit as alleged?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the
defendant has illegally interfered with her
lawful possession and attempted to demolish
the existing structure therein as alleged?
3. Whether the defendant proves that it has
acquired the suit schedule property and the
acquired land vests with it as alleged?
20 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction against the defendant
as prayed?
5. To what reliefs, if any, the parties are
entitled?
15. In order to prove their respective cases, parties have
adduced evidence, wherein plaintiff is examined in this case
as P.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.22 and closed
his side. Defendant has got examined its Superintendent,
Land Acquisition section of BDA is examined as D.W.1 and
got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 and one R.Ram Prasad Assistant
Engineer No.2, North Sub-Division of BDA is examined as
D.W.2 and Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.9 are marked through this
witness. Hence with this evidence, defendant evidence is
closed.
16. I have heard the arguments on both sides in all the
cases.
17. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
placed on record and on appreciation of material placed on
record, considering the arguments contentions, I answer the
above issues in all the cases are as follows:-
21 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Issue No.1 and 2 in all
the cases: In affirmative;
Issue No.3 in all the
cases: In Negative;
Issue No.4 in all the The plaintiff in each case are
cases: entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction against
defendant/BDA in respect of
suit schedule property as
prayed for.
Issue No.5 in all the The suits filed by the plaintiffs
cases: deserves to be decreed with
costs and plaintiffs are entitled
for the relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for and all
the three suits filed by the
respective plaintiffs deserves to
decreed with costs against
defendant authority for the
following reasons:-
REASONS
18. Issue No.1 to 3 in all the cases: These three
issues are interlinked to each other in view of the rival
pleadings urged by the parties to this suit, wherein it is the
case of the plaintiffs in respect of these three suits that the
residential site properties involved in these three suits namely
O.S. No.3372/2011, wherein the suit is filed by the original
grantee of residential site namely Narayanappa S/O
22 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Muniyappa and he filed the suit through his GPA holder one
Sri. P.Prabhakar Reddy in respect of residential site bearing
site No.136 formed in Sy.No.148, katha No.289/4 , 148/136
as per form No.9 and 10 and in O.S. No.3373/2011 the suit
is filed by Smt. Sampangiyamma wife of Sri. Krishnappa
through her power of attorney Sri. P.Laxminarayana Reddy in
respect of residential house property situated at No.135 , 2nd
cross, Pillareddynagara, Banasawadi Post, Bengaluru-43
measuring 40'X30' with 2 ½ square constructed house existed
in this site property and the plaintiff in O.S. No.3374/2011 has
filed the suit namely Smt. Rukmini d/o Late Subbaiah and
deceased Muttamma claiming to be the owner and in lawful
possession of site property bearing No.171, 1st cross,
Pillareddynagar, Banasaawadi post, Bengaluru-43 and it is the
case of the plaintiff in O.S. No.3372/2011, wherein the
Government has acquired land Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi
village measuring 3 acres 14 guntas in the year 1980 and
Government has allotted residential sites in Sy.No.148 of
Chikkabanaswadi village after formation of layout in
commemoration of 28th Anniversary of Independence Day on
13.4.1979 and the object of the Government in formation of
layout in Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village to distribute
and to allot residential sites to weaker section of the society
and also to poor persons and accordingly, the plaintiff in O.S.
No. 3372/2011 was allotted with site house property No.136
23 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
in Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village and in connected
suuits, wherein the husband of Smt. Sampangiyamma wife of
Krishnappa was allotted with site No.135 in Sy.No.148 by
issuance of Hakkupathra by the BDO, dated 26.12.1979 and
in O.S. No. 3372/2011 site No.136 was allotted to plaintiff
Narayanappa by issuance of original Hakkupathra dated
26.12.1979 that site No.171 was allotted in favour of her
deceased mother Smt.Muttamma by issuance of Hakkupathra
by BDO dated 8.2.1980 and plaintiffs of each case have
pleaded that the Government had formed residential sites in
Sy.No. 148 of Chikkabanaswadi village, which is abutting to
land Sy.No.156 of Chikkabanaswadi village, wherein the BDO
Bengaluru South Taluk has allotted three sites in favour of
various persons in Chikkabanaswadi village out of Sy.No.148
to poor people and out of such allottees, the plaintiffs herein
are the beneficiaries and then Chairman of Village
Panchayath, one late Pillareddy has done yeomen service to the
poor people and weaker section of the society and he was
instrumental in allotting free sites to the reserving persons
and therefore, the area, which has been developed residential
sites in Sy.No.148 was called as Pillareddynagar and
accordingly, the BDO had issued Hakkupathra allotting sites
carved out in Sy.No.148 in commemoration of the 28th
Anniversary Independence Day of India on 13.4.1979 and
these sites have been allotted in favour of plaintiff in
24 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
O.S. No.3372/2011 and to the father of plaintiff in
O.S. No.3374/2011 and in favour of husband of plaintiff in
O.S. No.3373/2011 namely late Krishnappa and hence,
plaintiffs alleged that defendant and its officials causing
obstruction and also threatening the plaintiff of dispossession
of the schedule property and demolition of existing structure
and hence, plaintiffs have alleged cause of action on 9.5.2011,
wherein the defendant and its officials visited the suit schedule
properties and threatened to the possession of plaintiffs and
also defendant and its officials directed the plaintiff to vacant
and hand over possession and threat of demolition was given to
the plaintiffs existing building by defendant authority. Hence,
plaintiffs alleging cause of action have filed these three suits
for the relief of permanent injunction.
19. The defendant authority appeared through counsel
in all the three suits and filed written statement raising same
defense in all the three suits contending that plaintiffs have
encroached upon Sy.No.156 of Chikkabanaswadi village ,
which is acquired land by BDA in LAC No.64/1979, wherein
the defendant authority has acquired Sy.No.156 measuring 5
acres 27 guntas by recourse to land acquisition proceedings
by issuance of preliminary notification dated 3.11.1977 and
final notification dated 13.11.1980 and award has been passed
in LAC No.64/81-82, award amount has been deposited in City
25 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Civil Court, Bengaluru and possession has been taken by
recourse to Sec.16(a) of Land Acquisition Act and as such,
defendant authority contended that plaintiffs have encroached
upon acquired land Sy.No.156 of Chikkabommasandra village,
which is adjacent land to Sy.No.148 and hence, defendant
authority contended that the schedule sites are common
within the limits of Sy.No.156, which is acquired property and
as such, they denied right, title and interest of the property.
20. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff in
O.S. No.3372/2011, wherein the GPA holder of plaintiff namely
Sri. P.Prabhakara Reddy has deposed by filing affidavit
evidence filed in lieu of examination-in-chief under Order 18
Rule 4 of CPC and on perusal of his affidavit evidence,
wherein the GPA holder of plaintiff has deposed evidence by
reiterating the facts as per the plaint averments and P.W.1 in
order to prove title and lawful possession of the plaintiff has got
marked as many as 39 documents, which are marked as per
Ex.P.1 to P.39 and they are as follows:-
Ex.P.1 GPA executed by plaintiff in favour of
P.Prabhakar Reddy dated 13.5.2011
Ex.P.2: Hakkupathra dated 26.12.1979
Ex.P.3: Construction permission letter dated
18.9.1981
26 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Ex.P.4: NOC for construction of house dated
23.9.1982 for obtaining electricity
connection
Ex.P.5: Tax Demand Register (Form No.10) for
the year 1981-82
Ex.P.6 Tax Assessment extract (Form No.9) for
the year 1981-1982
Ex.P.7 to 9: Three tax paid receipts of Village
Panchayath dated 12.3.1982,
27.12.1989 and 17.11.1982
Ex.P.10: Ration card dated 27.6.2002)
Ex.P.11: Original voter identity card issued by
Election Commission of India.
Ex.P.12: Nil encumbrance certificate dated
5.10.2010 in respect of suit schedule
property for the period from 11.6.1989
to 31.3.2004
Ex.P.13: Nil encumbrance certificate
dated5.10.2010, 1.4.2004, 3.10.2010
Ex.P.14: Endorsement from BBMP dated
21.6.2010
Ex.P.15 to 17: Certified copy of tax receipt dated
14.7.2009
Ex.P.16 to P.19 3 Property tax paid receipts
Ex.P.20 : Suvarna katha of BBMP dated 4.6.2010
Ex.P.21: Copy of layout plan
27 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Ex.P.22 & 23: Two tax paid receipts
Ex.P.24: Certified copy of layout map of
Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village
prepared by BDO, Bengalure North
Taluk dated 27.1.1980
Ex.P.25: Endorsement issued by BDA dated
30.9.2015 in respect of non acquisition
of Sy.No.148
Ex.P.26: Survey sketch map issued by the
surveyor dated 16.9.2015 in respect of
Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village
Ex.P.27 to P.34: Property tax paid receipts for the year
2008 to 2016
Ex.P.35 & 36: Tow receipts dated 21.7.2015 issued by
Assistant Revenue Officer attached to
BBMP, Bengaluru
Ex.P.37: Katha registration certificate (Special
Notice) dated 27.7.2015
Ex.P.38: Original katha extract dated
21.11.2015
Ex.P.39: Original katha certificate dated
21.11.2015
Hence, P.W.1, has given his evidence and pray for
decreeing the suit as prayed for permanent injunction decree.
21. Counsel for defendant, who is representing BDA authority
cross examined P.W.1 on 11.4.2014, wherein P.W.1 admits
28 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
that he is the GPA holder of plaintiff by name Narayanappa,
BDO has allotted suit schedule property i.e., site property in
favour of Narayanappa and thereafter, plaintiff has
constructed house on the suit site by obtaining licence from
Grama Panchayath, Chikkabanaswadi village and he produced
licence issued by panchayath and P.W.1 stated that he has
produced tax paid receipts wherein plaintiffs has paid property
with tax in respect of suit schedule property. But P.W.1
denied that BDO has not allotted suit site to the plaintiffs and
plaintiff has produced false and created document. P.W.1
denied his knowledge about the defendant authority has
notified regarding acquisition of surrounded lands situated
abutting Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village and he do not
know whether Sy.No.148 and 156 of Banasaawadi village are
situated adjacent to each other and further he do not know
the defendant has notified Sy.No.156 of Chikkabanaswadi
village for formation of OMBR layout and he do not know
regarding issuance of final notification dated 13.11.1986 in
respect of land Sy.No.156 and P.W.1 denied his knowledge
regarding award passed in LAC No.64/1981-82 dated
21.1.1983 in respect of acquisition of land Sy.No.156 and he
denied about possession was taken over by BDA in respect of
Sy.No.156 on 5.2.1982 and P.W.1 denied his knowledge
regarding formation of layout in land Sy.No.156 and allotted
sites to various persons and P.W.1 denied his knowledge
29 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
regarding defendant, BDA has removed temporary shed
constructed in Sy.No.156 in the year 2010 and taken
possession of that area by putting fence and P.W.1 denied that
plaintiff and others have filed false suit only with an intention
to grab the property belongs to BDA and P.W.1 denied the
suggestion that suit schedule property comes within the area of
Sy.No.156 of Chikkabanaswadi village and P.W.1 denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely the defendant has
interfered with plaintiff's possession on 9.5.2011 and P.W.1
specifically denied that plaintiff is no way concerned to the
suit schedule property, since the suit schedule property
belongs to defendant.
22. The counsel appearing for the defendant further
cross examined to P.W.1 on 21.3.2016 in main case (O.S.
No.3372/2011), wherein P.W.1 admits that the survey sketch
map relied by him at Ex.P.26 is prepared on 16.9.2015 and he
do not know BDA was u informed prior to conducting of
survey as per Ex.P.26, but P.W.1 denied the suggestion that
Ex.P.26 the survey sketch map prepared by the surveyor in
respect of Sy.No.148 is prepared behind the back of BDA
authority and without intimation to it and P.W.1 denied the
suggestion that the tax paid receipt, katha extract and katha
certificate are created documents for the purpose of this suit.
30 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
23. The plaintiff in O.S. No.3373/2011 is represented
by her P.A.Holder one P.Lakshminarayana Reddy has
deposed in this suit on behalf of original plaintiff, wherein
P.A.Holder is examined as P.W.1 in O.S. No. 3373/2011 by
filing affidavit evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and on
perusal of the affidavit evidence filed in this suit, wherein GPA
holder /P.W.1 has deposed corroborative evidence by
reiterating the facts in the form of affidavit as pleaded in the
plaint averments and P.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff's
husband late Krishnappa was allotted with site No.135
carved out in Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village by
issuance of Hakkupathra dated 26.12.1979 and P.W.1 stated
that late Krishnappa after obtaining permission had
constructed house and he was paying tax to the Grama
Panchayath authority and plaintiff's husband Sri. Krishnappa
executed registered gift deed dated 14.12.2010 denoting the
plaint schedule in favour of plaintiff. Hence, the evidence of
P.W.1 is corroborated by pleadings filed by the plaintiff herein
and P.W.1 got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.39 marked
through P.W.1 are as under:-
Ex.P.1 GPA executed by plaintiff dated
13.5.2011
Ex.P.2: Hakkupathra dated 26.12.1979
Ex.P.3: Building permission letter dated
31 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
18.9.1981
Ex.P.4: NOC for construction of house dated
13.5.1982
Ex.P.5: Demand Register Extract(Form No.10)
for the year 1981-82
Ex.P.6 Tax Assessment extract (Form No.9) for
the year 1981-1982
Ex.P.7 to 9: Three tax paid receipts
Ex.P.10 & 11 Nil encumbrance certificate dated
5.10.2010
Ex.P.12: Endorsement dated 21.6.2010 issued
by Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP .
Ex.P.13: Suvarna katha in the name of late
Krishnappa
Ex.P.14 to P.16 Three tax paid receipts in the name of
deceased Krishnappa
Ex.P.17: O/C of application given by plaintiff to
Additional S.L.A.O dated 21.10.2010
Ex.P.18 Acknowledgment of BDA dated
21.10.2010
Ex.P.19 Gift deed dated 14.12.2010
Ex.P.20 Encumbrance certificate from
14.12.2010 14.12.2020
Ex.P.21 & 22: Tax paid receipts
Ex.P. 23: Layout map in Sy.No. 148 of
Banasaawadi village dated 27.1.1980
Ex.P.24: Endorsement dated 30.9.2015
32 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Ex.P.25: Survey Sketch map dated 16.9.2015
Ex.P.26 to 34: Tax paid receipts in the name of
plaintiff;
Ex.P.35: Receipt dated 21.7.2015
Ex.P. 36: Katha transfer receipt dated 21.7.2015
Ex.P.37: Special notice dated 27.7.2015
Ex.P.38 & 39: Katha extract and katha certificate
Hence, P.W.1 in O.S. No. 3373/2011 relying upon his
evidence and coupled with documents Ex.P.1 to P.39 prays to
grant a decree for permanent injunction.
24. The counsel appearing for the BDA/defendant in
this suit cross examined to P.W.1 in this case, wherein P.W.1
admits that he is GPA holder of plaintiff Smt. Sampangiyamma
and he further stated that the BDO has allotted site in favour
of plaintiff herein and thereafter, she has constructed house
on site no.135 after obtaining licence/sanctioned plan from
the group Panchayath, Banasaawadi village, and he has
produced documents in that respect issued by Grama
Panchayath i.e., licence for construction of house and P.W.1
denied that BDO has not allotted site to the plaintiff and
documents relied by the plaintiff are false and created for the
purpose of this suit and P.W.1 denied his knowledge regarding
acquisition of surrounding lands of Sy.No.148 by BDA
33 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
authority by issuance of mandatory notifications under Land
Acquisition Act and even P.W.1 do not know whether land
Sy.No.148 and 156 of Banasaawadi village are situated
adjacent to each other and further he do not know about the
acquisition of Sy.No.156 by BDA authority for formation of
OMBR layout and P.W.1 denied his knowledge regarding
issuance of preliminary and final notifications in respect of
land Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village and also passing of
such award on 21.1.1983 and taking possession of land on
5.2.1983 and P.W.1 denied that the suit schedule property
comes in the area of Sy.No.156, which is acquired by
defendant authority of Chikkabanaswadi village and P.W.1
denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in respect of
alleged interference into the possession of plaintiff by
defendant and its officials on 9.5.2011 and P.W.1 denied that
plaintiff and others have filed these suits in order to grab the
valuable property belongs to defendant authority.
25.The counsel for defendant further cross examined to
P.W.1 in this case on 21.3.2016, wherein witness volunteers
that he has filed application much earlier for issuance of
survey sketch map to BDA authority and P.W.1 admits that
Ex.P.25 is issued by one Mahesh , who is an official from
Survey Department and P.W.1 denied the suggestion that
there is no nexus or any concern in respect of the survey
34 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
sketch map marked at Ex.P.25 produced by him a BDA is not
party to this survey and P.W.1 admits that he has applied for
private survey of the land and obtained Ex.P.25 survey sketch
map. However, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.P.25 is
created document and produced by the plaintiffs in this suit
and P.W.1 denied the suggestion that katha certificate, katha
extract and property tax paid receipts and special notice issued
in respect of registration of suit schedule property in the name
of plaintiffs are all created documents for the purpose of this
suit.
26. P.W.1 representing the plaintiffs in O.S.
No.3374/2011 , wherein GPA holder Sri. P.Prabhakara Reddy
filed his affidavit evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and
on perusal of his evidence, wherein P.W.1 deposed in his
affidavit evidence by reiterating the facts has put in pleadings
and as such, the affidavit evidence is replica of plaint
averments and P.W.1 got marked Ex.P.1 to P.22 and the said
documents are as below:-
Ex.P.1 GPA dated 13.5.2011
Ex.P.2: Hakkupathra
Ex.P.3: Licence dated 27.9.1991
Ex.P.4: N.O.C
35 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Ex.P.5: Demand Register extract
Ex.P.6: Assessment extract
Ex.P.7 to 9: Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.10 and 11: Encumbrance certificates
Ex.P.12 to P.14: Tax paid receipts
Ex. P.15 Copy of application dated 28.10.2010
Ex.P.16 Acknowledgment issued by BDA
Ex.P.17: Acknowledgment issued by BBMP dated
25.3.2008
Ex.P.18: Registered gift deed dated 14.12.2010
Ex.P.19 & 20: Two tax paid receipts
Ex.P.21: Endorsement issued by SLAO attached to
BDA dated 30.9.2015
Ex.P.22: Survey sketch map prepared by
Government surveyor in respect of land
Sy.No.148 of Banasaawadi village dated
16.9.2015
Hence, P.W.1, who is GPA holder of plaintiff has given
evidence and pray for decreeing the suit has prayed for
permanent injunction decree.
27. The learned counsel appearing for BDA authority
cross examined to P.W.1 on 11.4.2014, wherein P.W.1 admits
that he is GPA holder of plaintiff Smt. Rukmini and P.W.1
stated that BDO has allotted site property in favour of
plaintiff and thereafter, she has constructed house by
36 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
obtaining licence from the panchayath authority and he has
produced the licence issued by panchayath and plaint
averments has paid property tax in respect of suit schedule
property and P.W.1 denied that BDO has not allotted any site
in favour of plaintiff and further he denied the suggestion that
the plaintiff has produced false and created documents and
P.W.1 denied his knowledge regarding the defendant authority
has acquired Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village and
surrounded lands for the purpose of formation of OMBR layout
and he do not know that lands in Sy.No.148 and 156 of
Banasaawadi village and situated adjacent to each other and
further P.W.1 do not know whether defendant authority has
acquired Sy.No.156 and other adjoining lands for the
formation of OMBR layout and he denied his knowledge
regarding issuance of preliminary/final notification under
Land Acquisition Act and also denied his knowledge regarding
passing of award in LAC No.64/81-82 and he also denied that
the defendant authority has taken possession of acquired land
on 5.2.1983 by recourse to Land Acquisition proceedings by
issuance of notification under Sec. 16(2) of Land Acquisition
Act and P.W.1 specifically denied that the schedule property
comes in the area in Sy.No.156 and P.W.1 denied the
suggestion that he is falsely deposing that the defendant
authority has interfered in his possession on 9.5.2011 and
P.W.1 specifically denied that he is no way concerned to the
37 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
schedule property since this property belongs defendant.
Hence, P.W.1 has not given any worthy admissions in his
cross-examination in order to discard his evidence.
28. The defendant authority has examined its official,
who is working as Superintendent in Land Acquisition Section
of BDA namely H.G.Bore Gowda son of Late Ganganna as
D.W.1, who has filed his affidavit evidence and deposed on
behalf of Spl.Land Acquisition office as authority holder,
wherein D.W.1 in his affidavit evidence deposed that Sy.No.156
of Banasaawadi village is acquired land by BDA, whereas
Sy.No.148 has not been notified for acquisition of Sy.No.148
of Banasaawadi village is adjacent land to that of Sy.No.156,
wherein Sy.No.156 is measuring 5 acres 27 guntas and this
land has been acquired by defendant authority for formation of
Banasaawadi Scheme Between "Old Madras Road and
Banasaawadi Road Layout" and defendant has published
preliminary notification dated 3.11.1977 published in the
official Gazette on 24.11.1977 and D.W.1 stated that the
defendant authority after issuance of preliminary notification
followed by final notification dated 13.11.1980, wherein Land
Acquisition Officer attached to BDA has acquired the
Sy.No.156 measuring 5 acres 27 guntas by recourse to Land
Acquisition Act and award has been passed in Limitation Act
No.64/81-82 in the name of kathedar one Sri.
38 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Muniswamappoa son of Sri. Nyathanna and possession has
been taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on 5.2.1983 and it
was handed over to the Engineering Section for formation of
layout and award amount has been deposited before City Civil
Court, Bengaluru on 26.11.1984 under reference sent under
Sec. 30 and 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act. Hence, D.W.1 stated
that schedule property is coming within the jurisdiction of
Sy.No.156 and plaintiffs taking advantage of location of these
two survey numbers, which are adjacent lands to each others
and Sy.No.148 is not acquired by BDA, wherein plaintiffs are
trying to encroach upon the land belongs to defendant in
Sy.No.156. Hence, D.W.1 pray for dismissal of the suit filed by
the plaintiffs and in the evidence of D.W.1 the documents
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 are came to be marked. They are as follows:-
Ex.D.1 Copy of preliminary notification dated
3.11.1997
Ex.D.2: Copy of final notification dated
13.11.1997
Ex.D.3: Copy of the award
Ex.D.4: Copy of the possession mahazar
Ex.D.5: Copy of ledger extract
Ex.D.6: Copy of notification issued under Sec.
16(2) of Land Acquisition Act
Ex.D.1(a), Concerned portions shown in Ex.D.1,
D.2(a) and Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.6, the land bearing
D.6(a): Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village
39 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
29. The counsel for the plaintiff cross examined to
D.W.1 in O.S. No.3372/2011, wherein he admits that he was
serving in BDA for last 38 years, he was working as FDA in
BDA authority and at the time of acquisition of Sy.No.156, he
was not working in Land Acquisition Section and as such, he
has no personal knowledge regarding acquisition of
Sy.No.156. However, D.W.1 stated that BDA acquired
Sy.No.156 measuring 5 acres 27 guntas for formation OMBR
layout . But he has no idea about how many sites formed in
Sy.No.156 and he has visited the spot, but he do not know
present spot situation and he do not know whether plaintiff is
residing in site No.136 of Sy.No.148 , Banasaawadi village
and D.W.1 denied that his knowledge regarding issuance of
Ex.P.2 Hakkupathra and he has not tried to assert him what
are the documents produced by the plaintiff and P.W.1 admits
regarding certified copy of layout plan prepared in respect of
Sy.No.148 allotted by BDA. Confronted the witness marked as
per Ex.P.24 and D.W.1 admits that that site No.136 is situated
at border area of Sy.No.148 as per Ex.P.24 and he do not
know whether vacant area is available in Sy.No.156 of
Banasaawadi village and he has no idea whether entire
Sy.No.156 is fully developed area and he do not know whether
Sy.No.156 comes under BBMP limits and he do not know
40 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
whether multistoried buildings and malls are constructed in
Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village and D.W.1 is having no
knowledge regarding allotment of sites in Sy.No.156 of
Chikkabanaswadi village and he admits that his affidavit
evidence is prepared at his instructions by his counsel and he
denied that the contents of affidavit evidence are false and
incorrect and D.W.1 further denied that he is not competent
witness to depose in this case on behalf of BDA and D.W.1
admits that he cannot say the encroachment made in
Sy.No.156 and D.W.1 stated that he do not know regarding
encroachment in Sy.No.156 and he admits that Ex.P.21 , copy
of layout plan issued by Assistant Director (North) Town
Planning, BDA and he admits that Sy.No.148 is attached to
4th B Main Road, and he has no idea whether 4th B Main
comes under Sy.No.156 and D.W.1 stated that he has not
verified Ex.P.1 layout plan and he admits that as per layout
plan, the boundaries of Sy.No.156 and at 4th B Main road and
Sy.No.148 and he has not enquired about the alleged
encroachment in Sy.No.156 and D.W.1 stated that there are
total 235 survey numbers have been acquired for formation of
OMBR layout as per final notification that he has no idea
whether Sy.No.148 is previously a gomala land and free sites
were allotted to the allottes of the sites after formation of
layout and he has no idea whether sites in Sy.No.148 were
allotted to site less persons under Ashraya Scheme in the year
41 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
1979-80 and D.W.1 admits that the has not produced any
sketch map in respect of Sy.No.148 and he has not verified the
layout map prepared and issued by BDO.
30. D.W.1 further in his cross-examination wherein
witness confronted with Ex.P.2 Hakkupathra issued in favour
of plaintiff, wherein he admits that Ex.P.2 and also further
admitted as per Ex.P.2, the plaintiff is in possession of site
No.136 carved out in Sy.No.156 and he do not know whether
plaintiff is in possession of Sy.No.156 of OMBR layout of
Banasaawadi village and question was posed to D.W.1 that
BDO after preparation of layout plan Ex.P.23, he has allotted
site No.136 out of Sy.No.148 in favour of plaintiff under
Ex.P.2. Hence, BDA has no authority over the suit schedule
properties, for this question, D.W.1 has answered that
Sy.No.148 of Banasaawadi village is not acquired by BDA
and D.W.1 denied the suggestion that though plaintiffs are in
possession of schedule site No.138 and in connected suits site
No.135 and site No.171 formed in Sy.No.148 of
Chikkabanaswadi village , but still defendant authority and its
officials are causing unnecessary interference over the plaintiffs
possession and enjoyment of these suit schedule properties.
32. The defendant BDA further got examined another
official witness namely R.Ram Prasad son of late L.Range
42 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Gowda working as Assistant Engineer No.2, North Sub-
Division, BDA and D.W.2 deposed his evidence through
affidavit evidence filed as examination-in-chief and on perusal
of his evidence, he deposed that Sy.No.148 is adjacent to
Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village. Sy.No.156 measuring 5
acres 27 guntas has been notified and acquired for formation
of Banaswadi Scheme between Old Madras Road and
Banaswadi Road Layout and Sy.No.156 acquired by due
process of law by recourse to Land Acquisition Act and
plaintiffs are trying to encroach upon BDA property acquired
in Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village and the same was
prevented by Engineering Section of BDA and BDA has put up
fence with barbed wire fending and hence, plaintiffs have
suppressed material facts and have filed false suit against
defendant authority. Hence, defendant No.2 has deposed in
this case and got marked authorization letter issued by AEE of
BDA North Sub-Division -2 and also produced layout map
showing two survey numbers 148 and 156 of Banasaawadi
village and layout plan prepared by BDA comprising of both
survey numbers, which are marked at Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.9.
33. The counsel for plaintiff cross examined D.W.2
wherein he admits that he was not working in Engineering
section of BDA when Sy.No. 156 was acquired by BDA and
OMBR layout map was prepared and D.W.2 denied that he was
43 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
not working in Engineering section at the time of preparation
of OMBR layout map. Hence, he do not have any idea about
acquisition of Sy.No.156 and formation of residential layout
and he has verified documents available in the office of BDA
and know about the proceedings recorded in respect of
formation of layout in Sy.No.156 and D.W.2 stated that
Sy.No.148 of Banasaawadi village comes towards east of
Sy.No.156 and D.W.2 admits that in the written statement filed
in this suit, BDA has admitted that Sy.No.148 was not
acquired by BDA and in Ex.D.9, layout map both in survey
numbers i.e., Sy.No.148 and 156 are referred in this map and
he did not counted how many sites are formed in land
Sy.No.148 which was private residential layout and D.W.2
stated that after conducting total station survey of Sy.No.156
and adjacent lands, layout map as per Ex.D.9 is prepared and
D.W.2 admits that BDA has not acquired Sy.No.148 of
Banasaawadi village. Hence, they are not concerned about the
said land and also sites formed therein and on perusal of entire
cross-examination of D.W.2, wherein he has not verified nor
understood about the documents produced and relied by the
plaintiffs in these cases and he do not know, which are the
sites formed in Sy.No.148 of Banasaawadi village and he has
not made enquiry in respect of sites formed in Sy.No.148 and
as such, he cannot depose anything in respect of sites formed
din Sy.No.148 possessed by the plaintiffs in these suits and
44 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
witness D.W.2 stated that the layout in Sy.No.156 of
Banasaawadi village is not yet completed and D.W.2 denied
his knowledge regarding the allottees of sites have filed
complaint to BDA alleging interference from the site holders in
Sy.No.148 and D.W.2 stated that BDA has handed over OMBR
layout out of Sy.No.156 to corporation authority and he do not
know the date of handing over of OMBR layout plan to
corporation authority of Sy.No.156 and D.W.2 admits that he
did not approached BDO office and made enquiry in respect of
Hakkupathra issued in favour of plaintiffs and D.W.2
confronted with map Ex.P.21, wherein he admits regarding
location of Sy.No.156 and stated that the limits/jurisdiction of
Sy.No.156 at 4th B Main road and at that point of 4th B Main
road, the limits of Sy.No.148 starts from that road and it is
marked with red ink line at the place, where 4th B Main road in
Ex.P.21 and the rest of the cross-examination is denied by
D.W.2.
34. On perusal of cross-examination in connected suit,
wherein D.W.1 and 2 have deposed in connected suits, wherein
D.W.1 got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 and D.W.2 further
examined and got marked documents Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.9
( O.S. No.3373/2011) and on perusal of cross-examination
directed to D.W.1 , wherein D.W.1 admits the layout plan
prepared in respect of formation of sites in Sy.No.148 by BDO
45 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
dated 27.1.1980 marked at Ex.P.23 and D.W.1 admits that he
has no idea about the existence of Sy.No.156 adjoining to
Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village and he has not
enquired about Ex.P.2 Hakkupathra issued in favour of
plaintiff and he has not made an enquiry in respect of plaintiff
constructed house in site No.135 after obtaining necessary
permission from Grama Panchayath, Chikkabanaswadi village
and D.W.1 admits that Sy.No. 156 and 148 of
Chikkabanaswadi village are adjacent to each other and he has
not visited site No.135 belongs to plaintiff and D.W.1 denied
the suggestion that he has no personal knowledge about the
facts of the suit as he was not working in Land Acquisition
Branch and counsel for plaintiff submitted to adopt the rest
of the cross-examination directed to D.W.1 in main suit in O.S.
No.3372/2011.
35. D.W.2 is also examined in this case by filing affidavit
evidence, wherein on perusal of evidence of D.W.2 recorded in
O.S. No.3373/11, wherein he got marked authorization letter
issued by AEE, Bengaluru North Sub-Division and layout map
comprising of two survey numbers they are No.148 and 156 of
Chikkabanasawadi village, which are marked at Ex.D.7 and
Ex.D.8 and on perusal of cross-examination of D.W.1 and 2
directed by plaintiff's counsel, wherein similar cross-
examination is made to D.W.1 and 2 as compared to main suit
46 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
O.S. No.3372/2011. Hence, there is no need to elicit the cross-
examination of D.W.1 and 2 in O.S. No.3373/2011.
36. After appreciation of evidence placed on record on
the side of plaintiffs in each case, wherein the plaintiffs have
claimed the title and possession in respect of site properties,
which are carved out in Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village,
wherein in main suit, the plaintiff Narayanappa claims to be
the owner of site No.136 measuring 40'X30' situated at 2nd A
Cross, Pillareddynagar, Banaswadi Post, Bengaluru. Likewise
in other suits in O.S. No. 3373/2011, plaintiff
Smt. Sampangiyamma claiming title and possession in respect
of site No.135 in Sy.No.148 allotted in favour of her late
husband Krishnappa as per Hakkupathra dated 26.12.19i79
and in O.S. No.3374/2011 plaintiff Smt. Rukmini is claiming
right, title and interest obtained through her mother by way of
execution of registered gift deed Ex.P.18 dated 14.12.2010
and plaintiff's mother was allotted with site property in
Sy.No.148 as per Ex.P.2 i.e., Hakkupathra dated 8.2.1980 by
the BDO. By perusal of documentary evidence produced and
marked through respective P.W.1 in all the cases, wherein in
two cases, Ex.P.1 to P.39 are marked and in one case Ex.P.1
to P.22 are marked and though D.W.1 and 2 have given
rebuttal evidence, but it is admitted fact that defendant BDA
has acquired Sy.No.156 which is adjacent land to that of land
47 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village measuring 5 acres 27
guntas and BDA has handed over possession of Sy.No.156
after formation of OMBR layout plan to corporation . But BDA
has not acquired Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village
measuring 3 acres 14 guntas and admittedly Government has
notified this land and acquired for formation of sites in the year
1980 and allotted sites to poor section people under Ashraya
scheme launched by Government of Karnataka , wherein in
O.S. No.3372/2011, plaintiff was issued with Hakkupathra
and in 2nd suit plaintiff's husband late Krishnappa was allotted
with site by Hakkupathra dated 26.12.1979 respectively and
in last case, plaintiff's mother Muttamma was allotted with site
by issuance of Hakkupathra dated 8.2.1980. Hence it is a fact
that defendant BDA has no right, title and interest over
Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village and plaintiffs have
proved their lawful possession and enjoyment and they have
constructed dwelling houses over allotted sites and residing
therein and plaintiffs have acquired title and possession in
respect of these suit schedule properties, which are existed in
Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village and plaintiffs documents
produced on record are authenticated and believable
documents and on the contrary, the defendant, who is owner of
Sy.No.156 is apprehending the alleged encroachment of site
holders in Sy.No.148 much less by these plaintiffs. Hence, the
defense set up by the defendant is not tenable to the case of
48 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
the plaintiffs and defendant BDA has not proved its defense
that the site properties involved in 3 cases are part of
Sy.No.156 of Chikkabanaswadi village . Hence, the entire
defense and contention raised by the defendant BDA stands
rejected and evidence of D.W.1 and 2 has no consequence and
it is not believable evidence. On the other hand , the evidence
of P.W.1 in all the three suits deserves to be relied upon and
acceptable evidence, which is based upon cogent
documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff
in O.S. No. 3372/2011 by producing original Hakkupathra
marked at Ex.P.2 and building permission letter as per Ex.P.3
and no objections certificate Ex.P.4 and coupled with other
documents marked through plaintiff's P.A.Holder , wherein
plaintiff has proved his title acquired over schedule site as per
Ex.P.2 and plaintiff was allottee of site by BDO as per Ex.P.2 .
Hence, plaintiff's title and lawful possession in respect of site
No.136 in Sy.No.148 of Banasaawadi village is accepted and
proved by the plaintiffs as on the date of suit. The plaintiff in
O.S. No.3373/2011, who claims to be the wife of late
Krishnappa, wherein late Krishnappa was allotted site in
Sy.No.148 bearing site No.135 by the BDO by issuance of
Hakkupathra at Ex.P.2 on 26.12.1979 by the Government of
Karnataka i.e., BDO, Bengaluru South Taluk and building
permission letter Ex.P.3 issued by the Administrator, Grama
Panchayath , Banasaawadi village, Bengaluru for construction
49 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
of house and No Objection Certificate issued by Grama
Panchayath dated 13.5.1982 and Form No.9 and 10 and
coupled with tax paid receipts , Nil encumbrance certificate,
endorsement of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Ex.P.22
layout map of Sy.No.148 prepared by BDO dated 27.1.1980.
Hence, the plaintiff has succeeded to the site allotted to her
husband late Krishnappa and as such, plaintiff in O.S.
No.3373/2011 proved her lawful title and possession in
respect of site No.135 in Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village
as on the date of suit and plaintiff in O.S. No.3373/2011 has
relied upon registered gift deed executed by her mother
Muttamma at Ex.P.18 dated 14.12.2010 and plaintiff has
claimed right, title and interest in respect of site No.171 at
1st cross, Pillareddynagar, Banasaawadi post, Bengaluru and
possession by producing original Hakkupathra granted in
favour of deceased Muttamma, wife of Subbaiah dated
8.2.1980 by BDO, Bengaluru South Taluk on behalf of
Government of Karnataka and Ex.P.2 to P.4 coupled with
Ex.P.5 and P.6, form No.9 and 10 and Ex.P.7 to P.9, wherein it
is proved by the plaintiff that Sy.No.148 belongs to
Government and residential layout has been formed and sites
have been allotted to weaker section of society and poor class
of people and hence, plaintiff has acquired title by way of gift
deed Ex.P.18 and as such, plaintiff in this suit has proved her
lawful possession coupled with title as per Ex.P.18 in respect
50 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
of site No.17. Hence, I hold that the plaintiffs have proved
Issue No.1, but defendant ha failed to prove Issue No.3 as
against plaintiffs. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in
affirmative and Issue No.3 in negative against defendant in
each case.
37. Issue No.2: The plaintiffs in all the three suits have
approached this court by filing these three separate suits for
the relief of permanent injunction against defendant i.e., BDA
represented by its Commissioner. The plaintiffs have
specifically alleged in their pleadings that defendant, BDA has
acquired land Sy.No.156 of Chikkabanaswadi village for the
purpose of OMBR layout and it is adjacent land to Sy.No.148
and it is specific case of the plaintiff that Government is the
owner of Sy.No.148 and it is the specific case of the plaintiff
that Government is the owner of Sy.No.148 measuring 3 acres
14 guntas and allotted site to poor section of people and to
the downtrodden people on the eve of celebration of 28th
Anniversary of Independence day on 13.4.1979, but defendant
authority and its officials are causing interference in the
plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of house constructed over
the alleged site and plaintiffs have pleaded that the defendant
authority making allegations of alleged encroachment in
Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village and officials of BDA came to
the spot on 9.5.2011 and made their intention to demolish the
51 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
house constructed over the allotted sites by the plaintiffs and
plaintiffs also pleaded that though they have approached the
concerned jurisdictional Police Station in order to lodge
complaint against BDA statutory authority and its officials,
but police have not entertained the complaint on the ground
that the dispute is of civil in nature and hence, plaintiffs
alleging cause of action to file the suits have approached the
civil court for grant of injunction relief. Though defendant
being a statutory authority established under the Statutory
Act of BDA Act 1976, wherein BDA has acquired Sy.No. 156,
which is adjacent land to Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi
village under due process of Land Acquisition Act 1894
measuring 5 acres 27 guntas belonging to one Muniswamappa
and others, but it is proved fact that the defendant has not
acquired Sy.No.148 of Banaswadi, which is adjacent to
Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village. On the contrary, it is
proved fact by documentary evidence by the plaintiffs herein,
wherein Government has allotted sites to weaker section and
below poverty line people in the year 1979-1980, wherein BDO
has allotted sites by issuing Hakkupathra which is document
of title and now considering the defense filed by the BDA,
wherein BDA has not filed any separate proceedings or suits
against plaintiffs herein and other allottees of sites alleging
encroachment in Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village, but
whereas the defendant authority in its written statement
52 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
apprehending and making allegations against plaintiff
regarding alleged encroachment in Sy.No.156, but considering
the evidence of D.W.1 and 2 and defense filed by defendant
authority, wherein the contentions urged by the defendant
authority in these injunction suits is not acceptable and there
is no iota of evidence to show that the plaintiffs herein have
made any encroachment in Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village.
On the contrary, plaintiffs, who are allottees of sites in
Sy.No.148 and defendant authority has no right, title and
interest over Sy.No.148 and in the properties owned by
plaintiffs, which are situated in Sy.No. 148 and hence, in view
of assertion made by the defendant authority that it is claiming
on the apprehension of alleged encroachment by these
plaintiffs in Sy.No.156, wherein the plaintiffs are apprehending
the interference by the defendant and its officials in their lawful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties
involved in these three cases and plaintiffs have proved their
title and lawful possession in Issue No.1 as against defendant
authority and the cause of action one alleged by the plaintiffs
dated 9.5.2011, which is proved by the plaintiffs, wherein
P.W.1 in all the cases have specifically deposed that defendant
and its officials are visiting the schedule properties and
threatening the plaintiffs to demolish the existing structures
of house property and to dispossess them from the schedule
property. Hence, this apprehension and alleged interference
53 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
made by the plaintiffs stands proved by the plaintiffs, wherein
the indulgence of this court is very much necessary to grant
the relief of permanent injunction as prayed by the plaintiffs
against defendant and its officials in order to protect the lawful
possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. It
is pertinent to note that plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.3 in the
above suits filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and
have prayed for grant of ad-interim temporary injunction
against defendant authority and I.A.No.3 was contested by
defendant and this court heard and disposed off I.A.No.3 on
merits by passing considered order on 30.6.2011, wherein
I.A.No.3 filed by the plaintiffs came to be allowed and this
court granted ad-interim temporary injunction against
defendant/BDA and its officials and servants etc., from
interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property and this interim order was
subsisting till disposal of the suit granted against
defendant/BDA and now plaintiffs have proved and
established their title and also lawful possession in respect of
suit schedule properties and on the contrary, the defendant
authority failed to prove and establish that schedule properties
comes within the limits of Sy.No.156 of Banasaawadi village
and on the contrary, plaintiffs have produced ample
documentary evidence to show that they have possessed site
properties issued by the Government through BDO in the year
54 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
1979-80, which are site properties formed in Sy.No.148, which
is exclusively owned by Government measuring 3 acres 14
guntas . Hence, the ad-interim temporary injunction granted
on I.A.No.3 deserves to be made absolute against defendant
authority and plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent
injunction, wherein plaintiffs are residing in the suit schedule
property under apprehension of demolition and dispossession
at the hands of defendant and its officials, servants or
anybody representing the defendant. Hence, plaintiffs have
made out prima facie case for grant of permanent injunction
relief as prayed in the suit and also they have proved the
alleged interference by the defendant and its officials as
pleaded in the suit dated 9.5.2011 and accordingly, Issue
No.2 is proved in all the cases by the respective plaintiffs.
Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in affirmative.
38. Issue No.4 in all the cases: In view of my findings
on Issue No.1 to 3, the plaintiffs in each case are entitled for
the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant in
order to protect their lawful possession over the suit schedule
property involved in respective suits. Accordingly, Issue No4. is
answered in affirmative.
39. Issue No.5 in all the cases: In view my findings
on Issue No.1 to 4 and for the reasons recorded on these
55 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
issues and findings recorded thereon, wherein the suit filed by
the plaintiffs against defendant/BDA deserves to be decreed
with costs. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.3372/2011 and suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.3373/2011 and in O.S. No. No.3374/2011 are decreed respectively with costs against defendant in each suit i.e., BDA authority , Bengaluru.
It is further ordered and decreed by grant of permanent injunction relief in favour of plaintiffs in all the three suits restraining the defendant authority or its officials, agents servant or anybody acting on behalf of BDA are restrained permanently from causing any interference, demolishing or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the schedule property.
Accordingly, it is ordered to issue permanent injunction relief as prayed by the plaintiff in each suit against defendant/BDA .
Keep copy of the original judgment in main suit i.e., O.S. No.3372/2011 and copies of judgments are to be kept in 56 O.S.No.3372, 3373 & 3374/2011 connected suits O.S. No.3373/2011 and O.S. No. 3374/2011 respectively for record purpose.
Draw decree accordingly.
{Dictated to the Judgment writer , transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this 20th day of April, 2016.} (S.V.Kulkarni) XI Addl.City Civil Judge Bangalore city.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff in O.S. No. 3372 of 2011:-
P.W.1 P.Prabhakara Reddy List of documents exhibited for plaintiff in O.S. No. 3372 of 2012:-
Ex.P.1 GPA executed by plaintiff in favour of P.Prabhakar Reddy dated 13.5.2011 Ex.P.2: Hakkupathra dated 26.12.1979 Ex.P.3: Construction permission letter dated 18.9.1981 57 O.S.No.3372, 3373 & 3374/2011 Ex.P.4: NOC for construction of house dated 23.9.1982 for obtaining electricity connection Ex.P.5: Tax Demand Register (Form No.10) for the year 1981-82 Ex.P.6 Tax Assessment extract (Form No.9) for the year 1981-1982 Ex.P.7 to 9: Three tax paid receipts of Village Panchayath dated 12.3.1982, 27.12.1989 and 17.11.1982 Ex.P.10: Ration card dated 27.6.2002) Ex.P.11: Original voter identity card issued by Election Commission of India.
Ex.P.12: Nil encumbrance certificate dated 5.10.2010 in respect of suit schedule property for the period from 11.6.1989 to 31.3.2004 Ex.P.13 Nil encumbrance certificate dated5.10.2010, 1.4.2004, 3.10.2010 Ex.P.14: Endorsement from BBMP dated 21.6.2010 Ex.P.15 to 17 Certified copy of tax receipt dated 14.7.2009 Ex.P.16 to P.19 3 Property tax paid receipts Ex.P.20 Suvarna katha of BBMP dated 4.6.2010 Ex.P.21 Copy of layout plan 58 O.S.No.3372, 3373 & 3374/2011 Ex.P.22 & 23: Two tax paid receipts Ex.P.24: Certified copy of layout map of Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village prepared by BDO, Bengalure North Taluk dated 27.1.1980 Ex.P.25: Endorsement issued by BDA dated 30.9.2015 in respect of non acquisition of Sy.No.148 Ex.P.26: Survey sketch map issued by the surveyor dated 16.9.2015 in respect of Sy.No.148 of Chikkabanaswadi village Ex.P.27 to P.34: Property tax paid receipts for the year 2008 to 2016 Ex.P.35 & 36: Tow receipts dated 21.7.2015 issued by Assistant Revenue Officer attached to BBMP, Bengaluru Ex.P.37: Katha registration certificate (Special Notice) dated 27.7.2015 Ex.P.38: Original katha extract dated 21.11.2015 Ex.P.39: Original katha certificate dated 21.11.2015 List of witnesses examined for plaintiff in O.S. No. 3373 of 2011:-
P.W.1 Sri.P.Laxminarayana Reddy 59 O.S.No.3372, 3373 & 3374/2011 List of documents exhibited for plaintiff in O.S. No. 3373 of 2011:-
Ex.P.1 GPA executed by plaintiff dated 13.5.2011 Ex.P.2: Hakkupathra dated 26.12.1979 Ex.P.3: Building permission letter dated 18.9.1981 Ex.P.4: NOC for construction of house dated 13.5.1982 Ex.P.5: Demand Register Extract(Form No.10) for the year 1981-82 Ex.P.6 Tax Assessment extract (Form No.9) for the year 1981-1982 Ex.P.7 to 9: Three tax paid receipts Ex.P.10 & 11 Nil encumbrance certificate dated 5.10.2010 Ex.P.12: Endorsement dated 21.6.2010 issued by Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP .
Ex.P.13: Suvarna katha in the name of late Krishnappa Ex.P.14 to P.16 Three tax paid receipts in the name of deceased Krishnappa Ex.P.17: O/C of application given by plaintiff to Additional S.L.A.O dated 21.10.2010 Ex.P.18 Acknowledgment of BDA dated 21.10.2010 60 O.S.No.3372, 3373 & 3374/2011 Ex.P.19 Gift deed dated 14.12.2010 Ex.P.20 Encumbrance certificate from 14.12.2010 14.12.2020 Ex.P.21 & 22: Tax paid receipts Ex.P. 23: Layout map in Sy.No. 148 of Banasaawadi village dated 27.1.1980 Ex.P.24: Endorsement dated 30.9.2015 Ex.P.25: Survey Sketch map dated 16.9.2015 Ex.P.26 to 34: Tax paid receipts in the name of plaintiff;
Ex.P.35: Receipt dated 21.7.2015 Ex.P. 36: Katha transfer receipt dated 21.7.2015 Ex.P.37: Special notice dated 27.7.2015 Ex.P.38 & 39: Katha extract and katha certificate List of witnesses examined for plaintiff in O.S. No. 3374 of 2011:-
P.W.1 Sri. P.Prabhakara Reddy List of documents exhibited for plaintiff in O.S. No. 3374 of 2011:-
Ex.P.1 GPA dated 13.5.2011 Ex.P.2: Hakkupathra Ex.P.3: Licence dated 27.9.1991 Ex.P.4: N.O.C 61 O.S.No.3372, 3373 & 3374/2011 Ex.P.5: Demand Register extract Ex.P.6: Assessment extract Ex.P.7 to 9: Tax paid receipts Ex.P.10 and 11: Encumbrance certificates Ex.P.12 to P.14: Tax paid receipts Ex. P.15 Copy of application dated 28.10.2010 Ex.P.16 Acknowledgment issued by BDA Ex.P.17: Acknowledgment issued by BBMP dated 25.3.2008 Ex.P.18: Registered gift deed dated 14.12.2010 Ex.P.19 & 20: Two tax paid receipts Ex.P.21: Endorsement issued by SLAO attached to BDA dated 30.9.2015 Ex.P.22: Survey sketch map prepared by Government surveyor in respect of land Sy.No.148 of Banasaawadi village dated 16.9.2015 List of witnesses examined for defendant in O.S. No.3372. 3373 and 3374 of 2011:
D.W.1 Sri. H.G.Boregowda
D.W.2: R.Ram Prasad
62 O.S.No.3372, 3373 &
3374/2011
List of documents exhibited for defendant in O.S. No.3372 of 2011:-
Ex.D.1 Authorization letter dated 19.7.2014 Ex.D.2 Copy of preliminary notification dated 3.11.1997 Ex.D.3: Copy of final notification dated 13.11.1980 Ex.D.4: Copy of the award Ex.D.5: Copy of the possession mahazar Ex.D.6: Copy of ledger extract Ex.D.7: Copy of notification issued under Sec.
16(2) of Land Acquisition Act Ex.D.7(a): Concerned portions shown in Ex.D.7 Ex.D.8: Letter of authorization dated 23.7.2015 Ex.D.9: Layout map of Sy.No.148 and 156 of Banasawadi village.
List of documents exhibited for defendant in O.S. No.3373 and 3374 of 2011:-
Ex.D.1 Copy of preliminary notification dated 3.11.1997 Ex.D.2: Copy of final notification dated 13.11.1980 Ex.D.3: Copy of the award Ex.D.4: Copy of the possession mahazar Ex.D.5: Copy of ledger extract 63 O.S.No.3372, 3373 & 3374/2011 Ex.D.6: Copy of notification issued under Sec.
16(2) of Land Acquisition Act Ex.D.7 Letter of authorization dated 23.7.2015 Ex.D.8: Layout map of Sy.No.148 and 156 of Banasawadi village.
(S.V.Kulkarni) XI Addl.City Civil Judge Bangalore city.