Bangalore District Court
Sri.Pillappa vs The Commissioner on 26 May, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XL ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-41) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2020.
PRESENT
SRI.RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI,
M.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.1594/2007
PLAINTIFFS: 1. Sri.Pillappa
S/o Late Venkataramanappa
Aged about 75 years,
2. Sri.Chandraiah
S/o Pillappa
Aged about 35 years,
3. Sri.Prakash
S/o Sri.Pillappa
Aged about 29 years,
All are residing at No.92, 2nd Cross,
Doddakallasandra village,
Kanakapura Main road,
Bangalore-560 068.
Represented by their GPA Holder,
Sri.K.B.Ramakrishna Reddy
S/o Sri.Byreddy
Aged about 36 years, r/at
No.14, 2nd Cross,
2 O.S.No.1594/2007
Jai Bheemanagar (Hale Madiwala)
Bangalore-560 068.
(By Sri.A.N.K- Advocate.)
AND:
DEFENDANT: The Commissioner
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore.
( By Sri.S.S.- Advocate )
i) Date of Institution of the 24-02-2007
suit.
ii) Nature of the suit. Injunction Suit
iii) Date of the 07-07-2009
commencement of
recording of evidence.
iv) Date on which the
judgment was pronounced. 26-05-2020
v) Total Duration Years Months Days
13 03 02
(RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions judge,
Bengaluru.
****
JUDGMENT
This suit is for Declaration and Injunction.
3 O.S.No.1594/20072. The plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and declare that they are entitled for compensation amount and permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment in respect of schedule property. "All that piece and parcel of two acres of dry land in Sy.No.15 of Doddakallasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, and bounded on East by Subbanna's land, West by Sy.No.14, North by Smt.Mangamma's Land and South by Puttamma's land" is treated as suit property for the sake of convenience.
The plaintiffs pleaded that they are absolute owners and possessors of suit land. It is averred that plaintiff No.1, Pillappa was the original grantee and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are sons of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs pleaded that Pillappa was grantee of schedule property as per grant order GMF.NO.ADS.MIS.PLK.LAQ.38:54-55 dated 29/10/1955, CDC.NO.B2 9CD2 7:54-55, Taluk No.GMF, 82:54-55. The revenue entries are made in the name of Pillappa as per MR No.57/92-93. The plaintiff No.1, Pillappa made an application to Government for regularization of schedule property.
4 O.S.No.1594/2007The Government, as per the order granted the suit land for use and occupation after observing all formalities. The plaintiff No.1, Pillappa became absolute owner and possessor. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant issued notification under Section 18(3) of Bengaluru Development Authority Act for acquisition of schedule property and other portions of Sy.No.15 and final notification was also published. After coming to know about issuance of notification, plaintiffs have preferred W.P.No.34569/1997 alongwith other persons who are similarly placed in W.P.NOs.34557 to 34669/1997. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka after hearing the matter, passed common order on 31/08/1998 and allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notification issued by Bengaluru Development Authority by giving liberty to pursue the acquisition from stage of considering the representations filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs averred that immediately after the order passed in writ petition, gave representation/objections for acquisition of land. The defendant after receiving the objections statement has not proceeded further and accordingly no further declarations or award has been passed by the defendant and there was no taking of possession of schedule property by the 5 O.S.No.1594/2007 defendant, thereby plaintiff continued in possession of the schedule property. The plaintiffs pleaded that in order to update the file pertaining to the schedule property, they made efforts to search the documents in the Revenue department and obtained certified copies and revenue records on 25/03/2008 and 12/05/2009. It is averred that all the revenue documents like Record of Rights, Mutation entries stands in the name of plaintiffs and they are paying tax to concerned authorities in respect of schedule property. Thus being the circumstances, the defendant through its contractors without there being any acquisition and there being any award are taking possession in utter disobedience of order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka making attempt to enter the schedule property and adjacent property in the last week of June, 2007. Therefore, plaintiffs got issued notice. The plaintiffs further averred in the another round of litigation, plaintiffs alongwith similarly placed persons, challenged the action of the defendant, which culminated in a Special Leave Petition being filed by plaintiff before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court by its order dated 15/03/2010 disposed of the SLP reserving the rights to plaintiffs to establish their title 6 O.S.No.1594/2007 for claiming compensation in proper proceedings. It is averred that inspite of said notice, the officials of defendant and contractors are making hectic efforts to form road and bulldozing the land, for which plaintiffs objected by showing order of Hon'ble High Court and endorsement issued by Bengaluru Development Authority. However, the defendant officials fails to show any document, but taking advantage of their dominant position as Government agency having the power of men and material illegally trespassed over the schedule property and making attempt to form layout even though defendant having no power or authority to do so. Therefore, plaintiffs have got issued the notice to defendant only their intention to approach the Court. The statutory period is over. The plaintiffs averred that defendant has no locus standi to form any layout as much as the very notification was quashed and no further notification or award was made. The plaintiffs pleaded that they have been recognized as owners of suit land and they are in possession of it.
In view of the order passed in SLP No.CC.3511/2010, it has become necessary to aver further facts to seek for decree of declaration. The cause of action accrues to the plaintiff on 7 O.S.No.1594/2007 05/01/2007, 07/01/2007 when notice was given and again on 17/02/2007, when defendant collectively made attempt to form road and the schedule property.
3. After appearance, defendant filed written statement contending that suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and it is not maintainable in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs have not issued notice under Section 64 of Bengaluru Development Authority Act prior to filing the suit. The defendant averred that Sy.No.15 measuring 16 acres 22 guntas of Doddakallasandra village was notified for acquisition by Bengaluru Development Authority by issuing preliminary notification dated 17/11/1988. Pursuant to preliminary notification, the final notification bearing No.HUD 553 MNX 90 dated 22/07/1991 was issued in respect of the Sy.No.15. After issuance of preliminary and final notification, the Hon'ble High court by its order dated 31/08/1998 and 02/09/1998 in W.P No.34557 to 34669/1997 connected with other writ petitions quashed the declaration. The defendants averred that while liberty has been given to Bengaluru Development Authority to pursue the acquisitions of 8 O.S.No.1594/2007 lands after considering the objections and on 26/04/1999, the Bengaluru Development Authority has considered the objections of plaintiffs and over ruled the same and resolved to move the Government for fresh notification. Accordingly, Government has issued final notification on 07/10/1999. After issuance of final notification, an award was passed on 07/0/2006 by LAO to an extent of 10 acres 30 guntas and it was approved by Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition on 16/08/2006. Subsequent to passing the award, the possession in respect of 10 acres 30 guntas has been taken under possession Mahazar dated 19/08/2006 and handedover to engineering wing for formation of layout. The fact of taking possession on 19/08/2006 was notified under Section 16(2) of Bengaluru Development Authority Act and it was published in Karnataka Gazette dated 18/01/2007. The defendant averred that Bengaluru Development Authority Employees welfare Association requested the government and Bengaluru Development Authority to allot lands for formation of layout to its members in bulk. On considering the request of association, the Government by its order No.NAE/40 BEMAASEE/2006 dated 19/04/2006 accorded 9 O.S.No.1594/2007 approval for allotment of lands. Accordingly, an extent of 33 aces 2 guntas out of which an extent of 8 acres 26 guntas in Sy.No.15, an extent of 5 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.16, and an extent of 18 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.17 of Doddakallasandra village was allotted to Bengaluru Development Authority Employees Welfare Association and sale deed has also been executed in favour of society on 09/11/2006. The possession of land was also delivered to the society. It is averred that 95% of the layout work in pursuance of said allotment has already been completed by leveling the land, forming roads and drains etc. The society proposed to allot sites in the first week of April, 2007. The defendant averred that two writ petitions are pending regarding Sy.No.17 of Doddakallasandra village i.e., W.P.No.2134/2007 and W.P.No.19043/2006. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 2 of the plaint as to plaintiffs are full and absolute owners in possession of land Sy.No.15 of Doddakallasandra village. The land Sy.No.15 of a Gomal land and other notified khathedars and Anubhavadars are B.Siddalingaiah S/o Range Gowda, Munivenkatamma, Ammaiayamma. The plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the 10 O.S.No.1594/2007 suit schedule property and they are claimed as grantees is absolutely false. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 3 of the plaint as to plaintiff No.1, Pillappa is grantee of schedule property and revenue entries are mutated as per grant orders in the name of Pillappa is false. The defendant also denied the averments of plaint plaintiff No.1, Pillappa made application to Government for regularization/grant of schedule property in favour of Government granted schedule property for their issue and occupation after observing the formalities. It is further denied that Pillappa became absolute owner in possession of schedule property. The defendant admits averments made out in para 4 of the plaint as true. It is admitted that defendant issued notification for acquisition of suit schedule property and other portions of Sy.No.15 and final notification was also published. The defendants further admits order passed by Hon'ble High Court in writ petition on 31/08/1988 and quashing the final notification permitting the respondents therein to pursue the acquisition after considering the objections. The defendant averred that LAO over ruled the objections and issuance of fresh final notification bearing 11 O.S.No.1594/2007 No.UDD/435/MNX/1999 dated 07/10/1999. The defendants denied the averments of plaint as to no decision has been taken by the defendant pursuant to order passed by Hon'ble High Court in writ petitions dated 31/08/1999 is untenable. The defendants denied the averments made out in para 5 of the plaint as to after receiving the objection statement, defendant has not proceeded further. It is also denied that no further declaration or award has been passed by defendant and possession was not taken. The defendant averred that after quashing the final notification bearing No.HUD 553 MNX 90 with direction to pursue the acquisition of land in question after considering the representations pursuant to which final notification was issued. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 6 of the plaint as to after filing objections, no proceedings have taken place in respect of the schedule property and plaintiffs continued to put in possession of the schedule property. Further, it is denied that endorsement issued by Bengaluru Development Authority confirms that there was no proceedings taken place in pursuance of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court. The defendants averred that endorsement 12 O.S.No.1594/2007 dated 14/03/2001 clearly shows that Sy.No.15,16 and 17 of Doddakallasandra village have been notified. The endorsement dated 14/03/2001 issued to the persons named therein and confined only to the extent of land for which the award has not been made for the reasons stated therein. The endorsement does not ensure to the benefit of plaintiffs and other claimants. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 7 of the plaint as false. It is denied that defendant attempted to enter the suit schedule property and the adjacent property in the first week of January, 2007 in utter disobedience of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court without there being acquisition or award or taking possession. The defendant averred that schedule property has been acquired by Bengaluru Development Authority in accordance with law after considering the objections and possession has been taken and layout substantially has been formed in land comprised in Sy.Nos.15,16 and 17 of Doddakallasandra village. The Bengaluru Development Authority has produced photographs in W.P.No.2134/2007 showing the formation of layout including the suit schedule property. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 8 of the 13 O.S.No.1594/2007 plaint as false. It is denied that defendant has illegally trespassed the schedule property by taking advantage of their dominant position as a government agency. The plaintiffs by suppressing material facts, filed the present suit. No cause of action accrues to the plaintiff to file the suit. On these grounds and substance, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of defendant in the suit schedule property ?
3. Whether defendant proves that the suit schedule property is vested with it by virtue of acquisition ?
4. Whether suit is bad for want of notice under Section 64 of B.D.A Act?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against defendant as prayed in the plaint ?14 O.S.No.1594/2007
6. What decree or order ?
Additional Issues dated 16/07/2012 :
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declarations as prayed in the plaint ?
5. To prove and substantiate the respective contentions, one K.B.Ramakrishna Reddy, the General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiffs examined as PW-1 and got marked 25 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25. The Sheristedar, working in office of SLAO, Bengaluru Development Authority examined as DW-1 and got marked in all 8 documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. The above issues are answered for the reasons, findings given in the foregoing discussions as:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.4 : The defendant has taken the contention that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be 15 O.S.No.1594/2007 dismissed in limine for want of issuance of requisite statutory notice under Section 64 of Bengaluru Development Authority Act. Section 64 of Bengaluru Development Authority Act speaks as :
"No suit or other proceedings shall be commenced against the authority or any member or any Officer or servant of the authority or against any person acting under the direction of the authority, the member or Officer of the authority for anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of the Act or a rule, regulation or bye-law made there- under without giving to the authority one month's previous notice in writing of the intended suit or other proceedings, and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the accrual of the cause of such suit or other proceedings nor after tender of sufficient amends.
(2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the authority or any member or any Officer or servant of the authority in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by such Officer or servant in his official capacity may be instituted with the leave of the Court, 16 O.S.No.1594/2007 without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1) but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit whether inter alia or otherwise except after giving to the authority, Officer or servant, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of relief prayed for in the suit.
As per Section 64 of Bengaluru Development Authority Act, no suit or other proceedings shall be commenced against the authority or any member or any Officer or servant of the authority or against any person acting under the direction of the authority without giving to the authority one month's previous notice in writing of the intended suit or other proceedings, and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the accrual of the cause of such suit or other proceedings.
9. On going through available materials on record, this Court finds that this Court observed on 26/02/2007 while passing orders on IA-I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure that before filing the suit, plaintiffs have issued statutory notice to the defendant on 17 O.S.No.1594/2007 05/01/2007 and acknowledgement dated 08/01/2007 has filed, which indicates that statutory notice was duly served on defendant. The plaintiffs by issuing notice under Section 64 of Bengaluru Development Authority Act, complied with statutory requirement of issuance of notice and after waiting of expiry of prescribed period, suit has been filed. In view of this, it can be said that before filing the suit, plaintiffs have issued statutory notice as required under Section 64 of Bengaluru Development Authority Act. Therefore, for these reasons, issue No.4 is answered in the Negative.
10. ISSUE NOs.1 TO 3 & ADDL.ISSUE NO.1 :
These issues are inter-connected and depending on each other. Therefore, to avoid repetition of the discussions of each issue, they are taken up jointly for consideration.
The plaintiffs initially filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs filed IA No.I/10 under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. The I.A came to be allowed on 08/12/2011 and thereby plaintiffs have amended the plaint and sought declaration of title.18 O.S.No.1594/2007
11. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1, Pillappa was the original grantee as per grant order GMF.NO.ADS.MIS.PLK.LAQ.38:54-55 dated 29/10/1955, CDC.NO.B2 9CD2 7:54-55, Taluk No.GMF, 82:54-55. As per grant, the revenue entries are mutated bearing MR No.57/92-93. The plaintiff No.1, Pillappa made an application to Government for regularization/grant of land in their name. Accordingly, the Government granted schedule property. The plaintiffs further averred that defendant-B.D.A issued notification under Section 18(3) of Bengaluru Development Authority Act for acquisition of schedule property and other portions of Sy.No.15 and final notification was also published. After coming to know about the proceedings, plaintiffs and others preferred W.P.No.34557- 34669/97. The Hon'ble High Court passed common order on 31/08/1998 and allowed the petitions an quashed the notification giving liberty to Bengaluru Development Authority to pursue acquisition from stage of considering the representations filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further contended that as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, have submitted the representations/objections for acquisitions of land by Bengaluru Development 19 O.S.No.1594/2007 Authority. The Bengaluru Development Authority after receiving the objections statement, has not proceeded further and no notification or award has been passed. The possession of the schedule property was not taken. The plaintiffs further contended that in another round of litigations, they challenged the action of Bengaluru Development Authority, which culminated in Special Leave Petition to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court by its order dated 15/03/2010 disposed SLP reserving rights to plaintiffs to establish title for claiming compensation in a proper proceedings.
12. To prove and substantiate the contention, power of attorney holder of the plaintiff examined as PW-1 and produced documents such as certified copy of Dharkasth register (Ex.P.2), endorsement dated 14/03/2001 given by Bengaluru Development Authority (Ex.P.3), letter of Asst.Commissioner dated 23/02/1998 (Ex.P.4), Mahazars dated 31/08/1998 (Ex.P.5,6,7), letter of Asst.Commissioner (Ex.P.9), proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner in RKCR.2/99-99 (Ex.P.10), RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.15/7 of Doddakallasandra village (Ex.P.11) another RTC Extract (Ex.P.12) Saguvali chit 20 O.S.No.1594/2007 (Ex.P.13), preliminary notification dated 17/11/1988 (Ex.P.14), certified copy of notification dated 07/10/1999 (Ex..15), order passed in W.P.No.33717/97 dated 31/08/1998 (Ex.P.16), certified copy of letter dated 28/01/1998 (Ex.P.16), certified copy of letter dated 31/05/1999 (Ex.P.17), endorsement issued by Commissioner dated 14/03/2001 (Ex.P.18), another letter endorsed by Spl LAO (Ex.P.19), notification dated 22/07/1991 (Ex.P.20), award dated 16/08/2006 (Ex.P.21), Mahazar dated 19/08/2006 (Ex.P.22), notification under Section 16(2) of LA Act (Ex.P.23), certified copy of sale deed dated 09/11/2006 (Ex.P.24), certified copy of possession certificated dated 09/11/2006 (Ex.P.25). On the otherhand, Sheristedar working in the office of SLAO, Bengaluru Development Authority examined as DW-1 and produced notification dated 17/11/1998 (Ex.D.2 and copy of final notification dated 07/10/1999 (Ex.D.3).
13. On going through the oral and documentary evidence on record, it demonstrate the fact that land Sy.No.15 of Doddakallasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measures 16 acres 22 21 O.S.No.1594/2007 guntas. As per the grant order, 2 acres has been granted to one Pillappa. As per the case of the plaintiffs, the land granted to Pillappa measures 2 acres bounded on East by land of Subbanna's land, West by Sy.No.14, North by Smt.Mangamma's land and South by Puttamma's land. The plaintiffs further contended that after grant of land, name of the grantee has been mutated in the revenue records as per M.R.57/92-93. The plaintiff No.1, Pillappa applied for regularization of property and the government granted the land to them. As such, he became absolute owners and possessors of the property. The plaintiffs except producing the saguvali chit and Dharkasth register extract, have not placed any cogent and reliable documents to substantiate their claim as to Pillappa is the grantee of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.15. Further, there is no material to show that as per the grant, the grantee came in possession of the granted land.
14. Apart from this, Bengaluru Development Authority with an intention to form Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar, 9th Stage layout proposed to acquire several lands situated at Begur, Konankunte, Doddakallasandra, issued preliminary notification No.BDA/SLA/SLAO/A4 PR/1988-89 on 22 O.S.No.1594/2007 17/11/1988. Further, final notification No.HUD 553 MNX90 dated 22/07/1991 as per Ex.P.12, 13, plaintiffs and other challenged the notification by filing W.P.No.34557-34669/97. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed order on 31/08/1998 (Ex.P.15) and allowed the writ petitions filed by the plaintiffs and others and quashed the notification leaving liberty to Bengaluru Development Authority to pursue acquisition from the stage of considering the representations filed by the petitioners. Further, in view of directions, Bengaluru Development Authority issued final notification No.UDD/435/MNX/1999 on 07/10/1999.
Subsequently an award has been passed on 07/08/2006.
15. As per the preliminary notification, out of 16 acres 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.15, 10 acres 22 guntas has been acquired and description of property acquired bounded on East by Sy.No.16, West by Sy.No.90, North by Sy.No.14 and South by Thippasandra boundary. Further, khatedhara/anubhavdars of the acquired land are government (Gomal), B.Siddalingaiah S/o Range Gowda, Munivenkatamma, Ammaiayamma.
23 O.S.No.1594/200716. Further, plaintiffs and others have challenged final notification No.UDD/435/MNX/1999 dated 07/10/1999 by filing W.P.No.6166/2007. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 20/06/2007. Against the judgment passed in W.P., plaintiff preferred Writ Appeal No.1848/2007. The writ appeal came to be dismissed on 22/09/2008. Aggrieved by the judgment passed in writ appeal No.1848/2007, Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court by its order dated 15/03/2010 dismissed SLP with an observation that "However, it shall be open for the petitioners to establish their title for claiming their compensation in the proper proceedings. The High Court's order shall not come in the way in such proceedings".
17. In view of the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Supreme Court, consideration of the claim of the plaintiffs as to they are in possession of any part of land acquired by Bengaluru Development Authority in Sy.No.15 does not survive for consideration. Further, the only point to be determined is whether plaintiffs proved their title to the acquired land in Sy.No.15 of Doddakallasandra for the purpose of claiming the 24 O.S.No.1594/2007 compensation from Bengaluru Development Authority or not.
18. As earlier mentioned, the plaintiffs claimed that land granted to Pillappa bounded on East by Subbanna's land, West by Sy.No.14, North by Smt.Mangamma's land and South by Puttamma's land. As per the acquisition notification issued by Bengaluru Development Authority, out of 16 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.15, only 10 acres 22 guntas bounded on East by Sy.No.16, West by Sy.No.90, North by Sy.No.14 and South by Thippasandra boundary has been acquired. The boundaries claimed by plaintiffs and the boundary given in the notifications are altogether different. Further, as per the acquisition proceedings, khatedhara/anubhuvadhars of the acquired land are government (Gomala), B.Siddalingaiah S/o Range Gowda, Munivenkatamma, Ammaiayamma. The property claimed by the plaintiffs is altogether different from property acquired by Bengaluru Development Authority. The plaintiffs except grant order, register extract of Dharkasth, have not placed any other material to show that they are owners of the schedule property and Bengaluru Development Authority acquired it. Initially, plaintiffs have filed 25 O.S.No.1594/2007 the suit for permanent injunction claiming to be in possession of the schedule property and alleging the interference by Bengaluru Development Authority. During the pendency of the suit, they got amended the pleadings and sought relief of declaration of title. Since the suit is for declaration of title, it is on the plaintiffs to establish their title to the schedule with cogent, reliable and acceptable material. Except grant order, extract of Dharkasth register, plaintiffs have not placed any further material to establish their claim. On the basis of the evidence placed on record by plaintiffs, it is very difficult to hold that schedule property is part of the acquired land by the Bengaluru Development Authority. As earlier already stated, the description of the schedule property and the description of the land acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority are altogether different even though the subject mater of the suit and acquisition is Sy.No.15 of Doddakallasandra village.
19. The Bengaluru Development Authority by issuing preliminary and final notification for acquisition of lands in Sy.Nos.15,16,17 and other survey numbers, acquired for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar, 9th stage 26 O.S.No.1594/2007 layout. Further, Bengaluru Development Authority passed award and took possession of the property acquired and handedover possession of the acquired land to an extent of 32 acres 2 guntas to Bengaluru Development Authority Employees Welfare Association. The photographs and other documentary evidence placed on record also discloses that beneficiary of the acquired land has been put in possession of it. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, writ appeal, special leave petitions filed by the plaintiffs and others, the plaintiffs cannot assert that they are still in possession of the acquired land. The plaintiffs are entitled for receiving the compensation in respect of acquisition of land in Sy.No.15 if they establishes that they are in lawful title to any portion of the acquired land in Sy.No.15 of Doddakallsandra village. As already discussed, the property claimed by plaintiffs i.e., schedule property and the property acquired by Bengaluru Development Authority in Sy.No.15 are having different boundaries/description. Further, the khatedhars/anubhuvadars' acquired land are different. The plaintiffs fails to establish that their title to the land in possession by placing reliable, 27 O.S.No.1594/2007 acceptable and cogent evidence. Therefore, for all these reasons, this Court is inclined to answer Issue Nos.1 to 3 and Addl.Issue No.1 in the Negative.
20. ISSUE NO.5 & ADDL.ISSUE NO.2: In view of reasons, findings given in the above made discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that as per the grant order, 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 15 of Doddakallasandra village has been granted to Pillappa, the plaintiff No.1. Further, Bengaluru Development Authority by issuing preliminary and final notification, passing award took the possession of 10 acres 22 guntas of Sy.No.15 bounded on East by Sy.No.16, West by Sy.No.19, North by Sy.No.14 and South by Thippaandra boundary. The plaintiffs though claims that they are in possession and enjoyment of schedule property, it has been acquired by Bengaluru Development Authority. In view of disposal of W.P.No.24557-34569/97, W.P.No.6166/2007, W.A.No.1848/2007 and Special Leave petition in respect to acquisition of land in Sy.No.15, the plaintiffs cannot assert their possession and enjoyment of the property acquired in Sy.No.15. Further, the plaintiffs have fails to prove with cogent evidence as to they are absolute 28 O.S.No.1594/2007 owners of the schedule property. As such, they are not entitled to receive the compensation from Bengaluru Development Authority. Therefore, for these reasons this Court answers Issue No.5 and Addl.Issue No.2 in the Negative.
21. ISSUE NO.6: In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. No costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her and corrected, revised, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of May, 2020.) (RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.
*****
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 - K.B.Ramakrishna Reddy
29 O.S.No.1594/2007
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 General Power of Attorney executed by
plaintiffs in favour of PW-1
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Dharkasth register
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of endorsement issued
by Bengaluru Development Authority Ex.P.4 Certified copy of letter of Asst.Commissioner, Bangalore South Ex.P.5,6 & Certified copies of Mahazars 7 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of proceedings of Revenue Inspector Ex.P.9 Certified copy of letter of Asst.Commissioner, Bangalore south Ex.P.10 Certified copy of proceedings of Deputy Commissioner Ex.P.11 Certified copy of RTC extract of Sy.No.15/7 Ex.P.12 RTC extract for the year 1976-77 Ex.P.13 Certified copy of Saguvali chit/Grant Certificate Ex.P.14 Certified copy of preliminary notification dated 17/11/1988 Ex.P.15 Certified copy of final notification dated 07/10/1999 Ex.P.16 Certified copy of orders passed in W.P.Nos.33717-18/1997 c/w 34557- 69/1997 dated 31/08/1998 Ex.P.17 Certified copy of letter dated 28/01/1998 issued by Spl.LAO Ex.P.18 Endorsement issued by Commissioner Ex.P.19 Letter endorsed by special LAO Ex.P.20 Notification dated 22/07/1991 30 O.S.No.1594/2007 Ex.P.21 Award approved by Spl.LAO dated 16/08/2006 Ex.P.22 Mahazar dated 19/08/2006 Ex.P.23 Notification u/S.16(2) of LA Act Ex.P.24 Certified copy of sale deed dated 09/11/2006 Ex.P.25 Certified copy of possession certificate dated 09/11/2006 WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 - G.P.Jayashree DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 Authorization letter (Marked in O.S.No.1592/2007) Ex.D.2 Copy of preliminary notification dated 17/11/1988 Ex.D.3 Copy of final notification dated 07/10/1999 (RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.
***** 31 O.S.No.1594/2007 32 O.S.No.1594/2007