Bangalore District Court
Sri.Kashif Nawaz vs The Bengaluru Development on 24 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH-21)
Dated: This, the 24th day of April 2019.
Present: Sri.Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.
B.A.,LL.B(Spl)
IV Addl.CC & SJ, Mayohall Unit,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.25169/2017
Plaintiff: Sri.Kashif Nawaz,
S/o.Sri.S.Shaik Ahmed, aged
about 23 yrs, R/at.No.10, 2nd
Cross, S.K.Garden, Bengaluru-
560046.
(By Sri.B.V.Ramamoorthy, Advocate)
V/S
Defendant: The Bengaluru Development
Authority, by its Commissioner,
Palace Road, Kumarapark East,
Bengaluru.
(By Smt.Prathima.V., Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 30.01.2017
Nature of the suit (Suit for Pro-note, Suit for Permanent
Suit for Declaration and Possession, Injunction
Suit for Injunction, etc.)
Date of commencement of recording 06.12.2018
of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 24.04.2019
pronounced
2 O.S. No.25169/2017
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 02 24
JUDGMENT
Present suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC for seeking the reliefs of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and also not to dispossess, the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and also from demolishing, alienating or allotting the suit schedule property to other and for costs.
2. The description of the suit schedule property as shown in the schedule to the plaint, is as follows:-
All the piece and parcel of the residential property bearing No.6, situated at 1st Stage, 2nd Block, New BBMP Ward No.24, (H.B.R. Layout), Kacharakanahalli, Bengaluru, (formerly being site bearing No.6, portion of house list khatha No.1098/10 and khatha No.1103, in Sy.No.181 & 182 of Kacharakanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru) allotted new PID No.024-W0618-51, measuring East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 40 feet totally measuring 1200 sq feet and bounded on the:-
East by: Road;
West by: Site bearing No.7;
3 O.S. No.25169/2017
North by: Site bearing No.5; and on
South by: Road.
3. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as below: -
Originally the land bearing Sy.Nos.181 & 182 measuring 2 acre 6 guntas of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, belongs to Sri.T.B.R.Boranna, Sri.T.B.R.Shivaram and Sri.T.B.R.Borajanna. They have executed GPA in respect of the said lands to Mohammed Mustafa, S/o.Abdul Rehman on 18.05.1992. The said Mohammed Mustafa has formed private layout and sold sites to different persons. As such he has sold the suit schedule property in favour of Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj. He has executed GPA dated 02.09.1995 in favour of Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj in respect of the schedule property. The said Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj has executed registered sale deed dated 27.12.2014 in favour of plaintiff on behalf of Mohammed Mustafa and it is free from all encumbrances and all revenue records stands in his name and paid the taxes to the BBMP and obtained the other civic amenities and sanctioned plan and also constructed the house.
The plaintiff is continuously in lawful possession and enjoyment of 4 O.S. No.25169/2017 the schedule property more than 35 years. The name of the plaintiff was not shown either in preliminary notification or in final notification and also the property was not identified in the said preliminary notification, no possession was taken and no award was drawn in the name of plaintiff; hence, the schedule property was not acquired by the BDA. The entire area is fully developed and the same is not fit for formation of layout. Scheme is already lapsed. Even mahazar drawn by the defendant has clearly shown that possession is in respect of the schedule property was not taken. Mere mentioning in paper is not sufficient and when the defendant has not taken possession from the land owners, and leave alone to them or owner to enjoy them physically possession amounts to admitting indirectly the possessionary title of the owners. Hence, the plaintiff's possession is settled one. The plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule property over the sufficient long period. At the time of construction of the building the defendant has not raised any objection for the said construction. Even the Hon'ble High Court in John B James case clearly held that if a person is in possession of the property then he shall be 5 O.S. No.25169/2017 evicted under the public premises act and if he proves his possession more than 12 years then he is entitled possessory title over the schedule property. The defendant authority has failed to follow the above said directions and attempted to demolish the schedule property in brad day light on 14.12.2016 at 10.30 a.m. and also attempted to interfere without issue of notice to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is having a prima facie case over the suit schedule property with sufficient documents as above stated. Defendant made an attempt on 14.12.2016 to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, the cause of action arose for filing this suit for seeking permanent injunction against the defendant.
4. After issuance of the suit summons and duly served upon it, the defendant appeared through its advocate Smt.Prathima.V.; thereafter the defendant has filed its WS.
5. Case of the defendant, in brief, is as below:-
This defendant contended in its WS that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either on law or on facts and it is fundamentally defective. Further it is contended that the entire of 6 O.S. No.25169/2017 Sy.No.181 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas, Sy.No.182 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, has been acquired by the defendant authority for an improvement scheme for public purpose for the formation of a residential layout called "HBR Layout Hennuru- Bellary Road", 1st Stage. The defendant authority notified the said Sy. Nos. under preliminary notification vide BDA/ALAO/S/11/78- 79 dated 27.06.1978, which was followed by final notification No.HUD 567 MNX 84 dated 09.01.1985 and the final notification under 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 06.07.1988 and the above said entire acquired land came within above said acquisition proceedings. Possession has been taken by the BDA and compensation awarded in respect of the above said acquired land; hence neither the plaintiff nor previous anubhavadar or khathedars of the said land are owners in respect of the above said land are not entitled to any claim or interest over the same. No person other than BDA has formed any sites in the said Sy.Nos.181 & 182. As such, execution of the power of attorney, sale deed or any other document, after preliminary notification in respect of the 7 O.S. No.25169/2017 acquired land does not hold any validity in the eyes of law, if any building constructed on the said acquired land is unauthorized.
Further it is contended that the BDA cannot transfer the property in favour of anybody which is illegal, such document in which the property got transferred will not be in accordance with law. Obtaining any khatha by making false representation and paying taxes in respect of the property which does not belong to him, cannot create any right in his favour and such possession if any is illegal and unauthorized and which cannot give him any ownership. The description given in the suit schedule is not admitted by this defendant; but, admitted that in the preliminary and final notification notifying khathedar was Sri.T.B.R.Boranna as per the documents in respect of said Sy.No.181 & 182 and acquisition proceedings were accordingly based on records. Further it is contended that since the possession of the above said acquired land acquired by the authority vest with the defendant only, interference of the defendant authority does not arise, it is only cooked story with ulterior motive. The plaintiff is not having any legal right do any process of availing loan in any bank in respect of the said land 8 O.S. No.25169/2017 181 & 182 of Kacharakanahalli Village acquired by the defendant. Thus, this defendant prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with heavy costs.
6. From the above said pleadings, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether plaintiff proves that, he is the lawful purchaser and owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that, he is in settled possession of the suit schedule property as pleaded in the plaint?
3. Whether defendant proves that, the suit schedule property was acquired by the BDA as per the Land Acquisition Act and suit property includes in it?
4. Whether defendant proves that, plaintiff is an illegal occupant of suit schedule property and her possession is deserved to be evicted?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitled to the suit reliefs as prayed for?
6. What order or decree?
7. On behalf of the plaintiff, affidavit evidence of plaintiff himself has been filed and she has been examined as P.W.1, affidavit evidence of plaintiff witness by name Sri.Shabul Hussain 9 O.S. No.25169/2017 as a P.W.2, and also filed a another affidavit evidence of another witness by namely Sri.Riyaz Ahmed as a P.W.3 and Exs.P.1 to P.9 documents have been got marked.
8. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant also, affidavit evidence of the Superintendent of the Additional Land Acquisition Section of the defendant authority, has been filed and he has been examined as DW.1 and affidavit evidence of the Assistant Engineer of the defendant authority, has been filed and he has been examined as DW.2 and Exs.D.1 to D.32 documents have been got marked.
9. Heard, the learned advocates for the plaintiff and defendant and perused the records. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has submitted written arguments also and the same has been considered. Learned advocate for the defendant has submitted written arguments also and the same has been considered.
10. After considering the evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1: Affirmative, 10 O.S. No.25169/2017 Issue No.2: Affirmative, Issue No.3: Negative, Issue No.4: Negative, Issue No.5: Affirmative, Issue No.6: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS.
11. ISSUE No.1 to 4: All these four issues are interlinked each other; hence, for avoiding repetition I have taken up all these four issues for discussion at one stretch. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, he himself got examined as a P.W.1; he has reiterated the plaint averments in her affidavit evidence that originally the land bearing Sy.Nos.181 & 182 measuring 2 acre 6 guntas of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, belongs to Sri.T.B.R.Boranna, Sri.T.B.R.Shivaram and Sri.T.B.R.Borajanna. They have executed GPA in respect of the said lands to Mohammed Mustafa, S/o.Abdul Rehman on 18.05.1992. The said Mohammed Mustafa has formed private 11 O.S. No.25169/2017 layout and sold sites to different persons. P.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that as such he has sold the suit schedule property in favour of Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj. He has executed GPA dated 02.09.1995 in favour of Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj in respect of the schedule property. The said Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj has executed registered sale deed dated 27.12.2014 in favour of plaintiff on behalf of Mohammed Mustafa and it is free from all encumbrances and all revenue records stands in his name and paid the taxes to the BBMP and obtained the other civic amenities and sanctioned plan and also constructed the house. The plaintiff is continuously in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property more than 35 years. P.W.1 further stated in her chief-
examination that the name of the plaintiff was not shown either in preliminary notification or in final notification and also the property was not identified in the said preliminary notification, no possession was taken and no award was drawn in the name of plaintiff; hence, the schedule property was not acquired by the BDA. P.W.1 further stated in her chief-examination that the entire area is fully developed and the same is not fit for formation of 12 O.S. No.25169/2017 layout. Scheme is already lapsed. Even mahazar drawn by the defendant has clearly shown that possession is in respect of the schedule property was not taken. Mere mentioning in paper is not sufficient and when the defendant has not taken possession from the land owners, and leave alone to them or owner to enjoy them physically possession amounts to admitting indirectly the possessionary title of the owners. Hence, the plaintiff's possession is settled one. The plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule property over the sufficient long period. At the time of construction of the building the defendant has not raised any objection for the said construction. P.W.1 further stated in her chief-examination that even the Hon'ble High Court in John B James case clearly held that if a person is in possession of the property then he shall be evicted under the public premises act and if he proves his possession more than 12 years then he is entitled possessory title over the schedule property. P.W.1 further stated in her chief-examination that the defendant authority has failed to follow the above said directions and attempted to demolish the schedule property in brad day light on 14.12.2016 at 10.30 a.m. 13 O.S. No.25169/2017 and also attempted to interfere without issue of notice to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is having a prima facie case over the suit schedule property with sufficient documents as above stated. Defendant made an attempt on 14.12.2016 to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, the cause of action arose for filing this suit for seeking permanent injunction against the defendant and he prays to decree the suit.
12. Further the plaintiff has got examined the one Shabul Hussain and Riyaz Ahmed on his behalf as a P.W.2 and P.W.3; they have specifically stated in their affidavit evidence that originally the land bearing Sy.Nos.181 & 182 measuring 2 acre 6 guntas of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, belongs to Sri.T.B.R.Boranna, Sri.T.B.R.Shivaram and Sri.T.B.R.Borajanna. They have executed GPA in respect of the said lands to Mohammed Mustafa, S/o.Abdul Rehman on 18.05.1992. The said Mohammed Mustafa has formed private layout and sold sites to different persons. P.W.2 & P.W.3 stated that as such he has sold the suit schedule property in favour of Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj. He has executed GPA dated 02.09.1995 in 14 O.S. No.25169/2017 favour of Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj in respect of the schedule property. The said Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj has executed registered sale deed dated 27.12.2014 in favour of plaintiff on behalf of Mohammed Mustafa and all revenue records stands in the name of plaintiff and he has paid the taxes to the BBMP and also obtained the other civic amenities. The plaintiff and her vendor are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since 1993 till today. P.W.2 & P.W.3 stated that the no possession was taken by the defendant and no award was drawn in the name of plaintiff or his vendor; hence, the schedule property was not acquired by the BDA. The entire area is fully developed and the same is not fit for formation of layout. The defendant authority has attempted to demolish the building in brad day light on 14.12.2016 at 10.30 a.m. and also attempted to interfere; at that time P.W.2 and P.W.3 with the help of the family members of the plaintiff saved the possession of the plaintiff.
13. On the other hand, the Superintendent in the office of the ALAO Section, Bengaluru Development Authority Sri.V.Anand, given his evidence as a D.W.1 by stating that the suit 15 O.S. No.25169/2017 of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine; since the plaintiff has purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed dated 27.12.2014, and it is not valid under law. D.W.1 further stated in his chief- examination that the entire of Sy.No.181 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas, Sy.No.182 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, has been acquired by the defendant authority for an improvement scheme for public purpose for the formation of a residential layout called "HBR Layout Hennuru-Bellary Road", 1st Stage. The defendant authority notified the said Sy. Nos. under preliminary notification vide BDA/ALAO/S/11/78-79 dated 27.06.1978, which was followed by final notification No.HUD 567 MNX 84 dated 09.01.1985 and the final notification under 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 06.07.1988 and the above said entire acquired land came within above said acquisition proceedings. Possession has been taken by the BDA and compensation awarded in respect of the above said acquired land; hence neither the plaintiff nor previous anubhavadar or khathedars of the said land are owners in respect of 16 O.S. No.25169/2017 the above said land are not entitled to any claim or interest over the same. No person other than BDA has formed any sites in the said Sy.No.181 & 182. As such, execution of the power of attorney, sale deed or any other document, after preliminary notification in respect of the acquired land does not hold any validity in the eyes of law, if any building constructed on the said acquired land is unauthorized. D.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that the BDA cannot transfer the property in favour of anybody which is illegal, such document in which the property got transferred will not be in accordance with law. Obtaining any khatha by making false representation and paying taxes in respect of the property which does not belong to him, cannot create any right in his favour and such possession if any is illegal and unauthorized and which cannot give him any ownership. The description given in the suit schedule is not admitted by this defendant; but, admitted that in the preliminary and final notification notifying khathedar was Sri.T.B.R. Boranna as per the documents in respect of said Sy.No.181 & 182 and acquisition proceedings were accordingly based on records. D.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination 17 O.S. No.25169/2017 that since the possession of the above said acquired land acquired by the authority vest with the defendant only, interference of the defendant authority does not arise, it is only cooked story with ulterior motive. The plaintiff is not having any legal right do any process of availing loan in any bank in respect of the said land 181 & 182 of Kacharakanahalli Village acquired by the defendant and prays to dismiss the suit.
14. Further the defendant has got examined the one M.S.Shankar Murthy on its behalf as a D.W.2; he has specifically stated in his affidavit evidence that the schedule property comes under the entire land in Sy.No.181 & 182 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru Noeth Taluk and this defendant authority has notified and acquired the land for formation of layout called "HBR Layout Hennuru-Bellary Road", 1st Stage. D.W.2 stated that after acquisition notifications and also upon passing the award for the aforesaid land, this defendant authority had taken possession of the said land and handed over to the Engineering Section for formation of layout. The layout has been formed and the same have allotted to the public. Some of the allottees are 18 O.S. No.25169/2017 already constructed their buildings and some others are still continuing their constructions; hence, all the aforesaid BDA allottees are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. D.W.2 stated that this defendant authority is true owner of the schedule property; hence the plaintiff is not at all possession of the schedule property and prays to dismiss the suit.
15. Upon perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1 he stated that he has personally seen the suit schedule property, which comes in Sy.No.181 & 182 of the Kacharakanahalli Village limits. It is also stated that he has purchased the schedule property from his mother Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj under registered sale deed dated 27.12.2014. The said Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj has purchased the schedule property from Sri.T.B.R. Boranna, Sri.T.B.R.Shivaram & Sri.T.B.R.Borajanna through their GPA holder Mohammed Mustafa under registered sale deed. It is denied that he has got changed the khatha in his name in respect of the suit schedule property by giving a false information to CMC and BBMP and it is also denied that the plaintiff and his family members have got created a false documents colluding with the BBMP officers. It is 19 O.S. No.25169/2017 also denied that there is not situated any building in the suit schedule property; he has got snapped the photos of other building and submitted in this suit as the building is constructed in the suit schedule property. It is denied that in a surrounding land of the above said Sy.No., BDA formed the layout and allotted to beneficiaries. However, P.W.1 admits that Sy.Nos.181 & 182 are coming in the limits of the Kacharakanahalli Village; but, it is denied that suit schedule property is acquired by the BDA. It is also denied that in entire land of Sy.No.181 & 182, there is formed BDA layouts and allotted to beneficiaries and they have got constructed buildings therein residing in respective houses. It is also denied that the plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property and not got constructed any house in the suit schedule property. It is also denied that the plaintiff is not in possession of the same, with a bad intention to grab the property of defendant illegally filed a suit against the defendant and falsely claiming as the suit schedule property is belonging to him. Even in cross-examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3 also the counsel for the defendant suggested that the suit schedule property 20 O.S. No.25169/2017 is belonging to the BDA; the plaintiff is not having any interest over the same. But, it is stated by P.W.2 that he is a resident of Hawali Mohala, Kolar, who is residing with his family members and he has seen the suit schedule property situated in Kacharakanahalli Village. It is also denied that the defendant has not caused any obstruction to the plaintiff and not tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. It is also denied that he is not residing in the adjacent property of the suit schedule property. In the cross-examination of the P.W.3 also appears as to that of cross-examination answers given to P.W.2. P.W.3 stated that he resides in the Marappa Garden, Bengaluru, House No.33; suit schedule property comes in Sy.No.181 & 182 of Kacharakanahalli Village. It is denied that defendant BDA authority has acquired the Sy.No.181 & 182 and wherein formed the layout. It is also denied that the said property is within the possession of BDA. It is also denied that he is falsely stating as on 14.12.2016 BDA officers were visited to the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from it.
21 O.S. No.25169/2017
Supporting to the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 the advocate for plaintiff submitted a documents; a certified copy of partition deed dated 19.01.1970 is also produced, which discloses a properties are got partitioned in between Sri.T.B.R.Boranna, Sri.T.B.R.Sivaram & Sri.T.B.R.Borajanna. Plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 27.12.2014 which discloses that Sri.Kashif Nawaz/plaintiff has purchased the schedule property from Mohammed Mustafa through his GPA holder Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj/mother of plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.39,60,000/-. Plaintiff has produced the tax- paid receipt dated 29.11.2018 issued by BBMP for the year 2018- 19 in respect of schedule property and Form-B property register issued by the BBMP for the year 2008-09 to 2012-13 and 2016-17 dated 24.11.2018 and receipt issued by the BBMP dated 24.2.2015 in respect of schedule property. Plaintiff has produced the Encumbrance Certificate issued for the period from 01.04.2004 to 26.11.2018 in respect of schedule property and colour photos. A partition deed dated 19.01.1970 discloses that the partition is taken place in between the Sri.T.B.R.Boranna, Sri.T.B.R.Sivaram & 22 O.S. No.25169/2017 Sri.T.B.R.Borajanna in respect of Sy.Nos.181 & 182 and respective item properties out of Sy.Nos.181 & 182 are got divided in between them. Ex.P.7 is a certified copy of registered absolute sale deed dated 27.12.2014 which discloses that Sri.Kashif Nawaz/plaintiff has purchased the schedule property from Mohammed Mustafa through his GPA holder Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj/mother of plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.39,60,000/-. Ex.P.3 is disclosing that Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj/mother of plaintiff has been paying a tax in respect of property khatha No.1103/1098/10/06 situated in Kacharakanahalli Village. Plaintiff has produced the Ex.P.4 a Form-B property register extract of suit schedule property dated 24.11.2018 in which the name of Sri.Kashif Nawaz is appearing as a owner of the said property and tax-paid receipt of the year 2018-19 it is appearing that the suit schedule property is being in the name of Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj/mother of plaintiff of Kacharakanahalli Village, Bengaluru, in which a khatha of the property No. is shown as 1103/1098/10-6 produced in this case including the colour photos, wherein plaintiff's suit schedule property photo is appearing and 23 O.S. No.25169/2017 also produced the encumbrance certificate for the period from 1.4.2004 to 26.11.2018 issued Senior Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagara (Ganganagara), Bengaluru, on 27.11.2018, which is also standing as the above said property is mutated in the name of Sri.Kashif Nawaz. Thus, the plaintiff advocate with the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and above said documents submits that from 2018- 19 plaintiff has been paying the tax relating to the suit schedule property and also got changed the khatha of the same in his name and obtained the electricity connection and water connection and other civic amenities to the suit schedule property, which are not objected by the defendant by submitting a complaint to the concerned authority and not got cancelled the same. Therefore, the plaintiff prays to decree the suit as prayed for against the defendant. Over all, plaintiff and plaintiff witnesses denied that the suit schedule property is acquired by the BDA and allotted to its beneficiaries.
16. Upon perusal of the cross-examination of D.W.1 by name Anand, who is a Office Superintendent of defendant and giving evidence on the basis of authorization issued in favour of 24 O.S. No.25169/2017 him by the BDA as per Ex.D.1. D.W.1 further stated in his cross- examination that from last 4 years, he is looking the supervisation of defendant office as a Superintendent and he stated that his work entrusted by the BDA is that, if their department is started to occupy any land for the purpose of forming the layout, it is his responsibility he has to observe the acquisition process of the defendant. It is also D.W.1 stated that he does not know the respective site Nos. situated in Sy.No.181 & 182 no any mutation registers, RTC, index of land records, are produced by the defendant. It is further stated that later on it came to his knowledge that Sy.No.181 & 182 were originally standing in the name of T.B.R.Boranna; it was came to his knowledge when the said land was acquired by the BDA. It is also admitted that in Ex.D.2 and D.3, which are the preliminary and final notification in Sl.No.142 & 143 of the Kacharakanahalli Village, therein mentioned Sy.No.181 & 182 is acquired by the BDA. It is admitted that as per Ex.D.10 & 11 award is passed in respect of the above said Sy.No.181 & 182 of the Kacharakanahalli Village and necessary award was 25 O.S. No.25169/2017 granted and paid to owners of the respective properties. It is admitted that in Ex.D.8, D.9 & D.12 to D.16 not mentioned the Sy.No.181 & 182 as the possession of the same is obtained by the BDA.
17. Upon perusal of the further cross-examination of D.W.1 it discloses that D.W.1 admitted that a boundaries of property in Sl.No.142 & 143 & property Sl.No.141 to 144 are one and same as mentioned in Ex.D.8; accordingly, boundaries of property Sl.No.267 & 268 as mentioned in Ex.D.9 also one and same. It means the boundaries of the properties mentioned in Ex.D.8 and D.9 respectively East-West and South-North are one and same. It is denied that the BDA has not mentioned the boundaries of Sy.No.181 & 182 in Ex.D.8 and D.9. It is further stated by the D.W.1 that a land measuring 2 acre 6 gunta of Sy.No.181 and 1 acre 19 guntas of Sy.No.182 are acquired by the BDA. It is admitted that as mentioned in Govt. letter in the Karnataka Gazette Notification published about the acquisition of Kacharakanahalli Village lands for the HBR 1st Stage Layout there is not mentioned the Sy.No.181 & 182. The said letter is nothing; but, it is a letter of 26 O.S. No.25169/2017 Karnataka Govt. written to BDA for de-notification of the some of the lands of Kacharakanahalli Village. It is also admitted that the documents are letter correspondence taken place in between the Karnataka Govt. and BDA in respect of the HBR Layout acquisition proceedings. It is denied that the defendants have produced the documents as becoming convenient to the defendant. D.W.1 stated that he has not seen personally the Sy.No.181 & 182 of Kacharakanahalli Village. It is further stated he does not know if private houses Indian Academic College, Bata Show Room, Reliance Mall and other shops are situated in above said Sy.No.181, 182 & 183. It is also answered that their department has not submitted any application to the BBMP for cancellation of khatha of Sy.No.181 & 182 and also not given any application to the BWSSB and BESCOM etc., to disconnect the electrical connection and water supply given to the above said houses, college, mall and shops etc., and accordingly not submitted any letter to the Education Department to stop the functioning of the college and administration in the above said college. D.W.1 further stated 27 O.S. No.25169/2017 that he does not know whether any complaint is given to concerned offices to stop the functioning of the mall, show room and shops situated in property Sy.No.181 & 182. D.W.1 further stated that he does not know that in the above said land of Sy.No.181 measuring 2 acre 6 gunta and 2 acre kharab land and Sy.No.182 measuring 1 acre 19 gunta and 2 acre kharab land there are not constructed any houses and it is not acquired by the BDA. For which can be properly answered by their BDA Technical Department Engineers and he cannot speak about the same. It is further denied that he has been falsely submitted a affidavit evidence and deposing falsely in favour of the BDA.
18. Upon perusal of the cross-examination of D.W.2, who is a Authorized Assistant Engineer of No.4, North Sub-Division, BDA, by namely M.S.Shankar Murthy, he stated that he joined to the above said Engineering Section of the BDA in the year 2011 and defendant authority has entrusted to him a supervisation of the North-Division, I Phase, HBR Layout, to observe and to take legal action against the persons, who will encroach in their BDA property and also for dispossessing them. D.W.2 it is stated that he 28 O.S. No.25169/2017 does not know Sy.No.181 & 182 was originally belonging to whom; but, he knows that the land of the said Sy.No. is acquired by their BDA for the purpose of formation of HBR 1st Stage layout. It is also stated that he does not know that a Sy.No.181 & 182 of the Kacharakanahalli Village not mentioned in Ex.D.8 and D.9 as the BDA is acquired the said property for formation of layout or not. It may be in the knowledge of Land Acquisition Officer of BDA and it is also stated he cannot say on which date, month and year the BDA has acquired the Kacharakanahalli Village properties for forming the layout through the Land Acquisition process. It is also stated that he cannot say about the above said fact without looking the necessary documents maintained in the BDA and also he personally does not know, which type of process was adopted by the BDA for acquisition and their Engineering Departments Officers for formation of the layout relating to Kacharakanahalli Village properties. He admits that they have not produced the tender documents of the HBR Layout in this case. Witness stated that probably it may be in their office file. 29 O.S. No.25169/2017 It is also D.W.2 stated that HBR Layout is consisting a sites measuring 30 x 40, 20 x 30 and 40 x 60 in a different dimension and a road measuring 9 and 12 meters also formed as becoming convenient to layout. It is also stated that they have not produced the any beneficiary lists of HBR Layout regarding allocation of BDA sites. It is further stated that a land Sy.No.181 & 182 of Kacharakanahalli Village, is existing in defendant HBR Layout, 3rd Block. It is only pertaining to Block No.3. D.W.2 stated that he can say about the acquisition proceedings or their BDA relating to the period of prior to 2016; by looking the office files only, regarding the development taken place in the acquired property; but, he is not having a personal knowledge.
19. D.W.2 stated that he does not know a remaining land of Sy.No.181 & 182 was purchased by the T.B.R. Boranna and others through their PA holder Mohammed Mustafa from their original owner and wherein they formed the private layout and sold the sites to the purchasers. D.W.2 admitted that the main road and buildings appearing in the colour 30 O.S. No.25169/2017 photos are belonging to Sy.No.181 & 182 of the Kacharakanahalli Village. It is also admits that during his period he has not submitted any complaint to the BESCOM, BSNL or other departments for disconnecting the connection of electricity, water supply and BSNL connection to the properties of T.B.R.Boranna or any neighbouring properties, which are purchased from the T.B.R.Boranna by stating that the said properties are belonging to BDA. It is also stated that he does not know whether his earlier officers were submitted the said complaint to the above said offices or not. For which witness stated that since there is a suit pending for the above said properties in a court he has not submitted a complaint for disconnection of the same. It is D.W.2 admitted that he has not produced document that the buildings of T.B.R.Boranna and other buildings are acquired by the BDA. It is denied that the BDA has not acquired the land Sy.No.181 & 182 of the Kacharakanahalli Village. Further he denied that he submitted a false affidavit and deposing falsely to support the case of defendants.
31 O.S. No.25169/2017
20. Defendant has produced Ex.D.8 the preliminary notification of BDA/ALAO/S/11/78-79 dated 27.06.1978, in which at Sl.No.142 & 143 shown land Sy.No.181 & 182 Gdn. land, are being in the name of T.B.R.Boranna, which are measuring 2 acre 6 gunta & 1 acres 19 gunta of Kacharakanahalli Village is acquired for formation of layout by the BDA. In Ex.D.9 a final notification No.HUD 567 MNX 84 dated 9th January 1985 discloses that the above said same land acquired by the BDA under preliminary notification is finalized in a final notification. The copy of the award is also produced, original land Sy.No.181 & 182 of T.B.R.Boranna, measuring 2 acre 6 gunta and 2 acre kharab land and Sy.No.182 measuring 1 acre 19 gunta and 2 acre kharab land. In column No.3 of the award there is mentioned remaining extension of Sy.No.181 & 182 measuring 2 acre 6 gunta Gdn land, after excluding 2 acre kharab land there is remained 2 acre 4 gunta, measuring 1 acre 19 gunta after excluding 2 acre kharab land there is remained 1 acre 17 gunta. A possession taken through the panchanama Ex.D.12 & 13 also disclose that Sy.No.181 & 182 of Kacharakanahalli Village measuring 2 acre 6 gunta & 1 acres 19 32 O.S. No.25169/2017 gunta comprising ACC houses 5 + 6, in total 7 houses and RCC houses 5 + 2, in total 7 were acquired for the formation of HBR I Stage Layout. Acquisition notification under Section 16 (2) of the LA Act dated 06.07.1988 is produced, in Sl. No.2 & 3 also mentioned that 2 acre 6 gunta & 1 acres 19 gunta of the said land is taken to the possession of BDA on 03.11.1988. A letter written by the Govt. Under Secretary, Urban Development on behalf of the Principal Secretary of Urban Development of Karnataka Govt. to the Commissioner of the BDA by stating that a land Sy.No.181 & 182 of Kacharakanahalli Village measuring 2 acre 6 gunta & 1 acres 19 gunta of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, to exclude the said land from acquisition made by the BDA. Then the Asst. Commissioner of BDA written a letter on 16.3.2009 to the Principal Secretary of Urban Development by stating that a land Sy.No.181 & 182 of the Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 2 acre 6 gunta & 1 acres 19 gunta is acquired for the formation of HBR I Stage Layout and finalized the preliminary and final notification and award is also passed for the said land and it 33 O.S. No.25169/2017 was sent to the Engineering Section for forming the sketch and directed to compensation amount is to be kept in revenue deposit; accordingly on 03.11.1988 a notification under Section 16 (2) of the BDA Act is also finalized and the said land is belonging to BDA.
21. It is case of the plaintiff that originally the land bearing Sy.Nos.181 & 182 measuring 2 acre 6 guntas of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, belongs to Sri.T.B.R.Boranna, Sri.T.B.R.Shivaram and Sri.T.B.R.Borajanna. They have executed GPA in respect of the said lands to Mohammed Mustafa, S/o.Abdul Rehman on 18.05.1992. The said Mohammed Mustafa has formed private layout and sold sites to different persons. As such he has sold the suit schedule property in favour of Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj. He has executed GPA dated 02.09.1995 in favour of Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj in respect of the schedule property. The said Smt.Musrat Jabeen Taj has executed registered sale deed dated 27.12.2014 in favour of plaintiff on behalf of Mohammed Mustafa, in which plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. In total, P.W.1 to P.W.3 have stated 34 O.S. No.25169/2017 that plaintiff of this suit is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by got constructing a house in the said property. Supporting to the same, a number of above discussed plaintiff documents are produced to show that plaintiff obtained the construction permission from the BESCOM and constructed a house; for which from 2018-19 to till today paying the tax to the BBMP regularly in respect of the suit schedule property and produced the B-register extract of suit schedule property in which it is mentioned as suit schedule property is belonging to Sri.Kashif Nawaz, who is plaintiff and also number of colour photographs, which are appearing a built up houses and the said photographs are admitted by the D.W.1 and D.W.2 and Ex.P.3 a tax-paid receipt of the year 2018-19 is produced and also other tax-paid receipts including the BESCOM bills and receipts for a electrical and water consumption charge is paid relating to suit schedule property. On the other hand, though the defendant got examined to D.W.1 and D.W.2 to disprove the case of plaintiff; however the plaintiff also got examined to P.W.1 to P.W.3 in support of case of the plaintiff and all the P.W.1 to P.W.3 have specifically denied the suggestion 35 O.S. No.25169/2017 of the defendant advocate that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants officials have not came to the suit schedule property as stated above for demolishing the building situated in the suit schedule property. No doubt, a number of documents produced by the defendant to show that Sy.No.181 & 182 measuring 2 acre 6 gunta & 1 acres 19 gunta are acquired by the BDA as mentioned in Ex.D.1 to D.32. In the cross-examination of D.W.1 and D.W.2 they have stated that the above said land of Sy.Nos.181 & 182 are acquired by the BDA for the formation of HBR Layout and the same Sy.No. is appearing in the above said documents. But, in the cross-examination both the witnesses have admitted that particularly Sy.Nos.181 & 182 are not mentioned in the said documents. Regarding the said documents Ex.D.1 to D.16 both the witnesses stated that the said lands of Sy.Nos.181 & 182 is also a part of acquired land by the BDA in Sy.Nos.181 & 182 of Kacharakanahalli Village. Further they have admitted that as per the records they are deposing as the said Sy.Nos.181 & 182 wherein suit schedule property is acquired by the BDA; but, they 36 O.S. No.25169/2017 have not personally seen the same. Apparently the defendants are claiming the suit schedule property are coming in Sy.Nos.181 & 182 of the Kacharakanahalli Village as the same is acquired by the BDA. The defendant Bangalore Development Authority relying upon the Ex.D.8 to D.16 which are the documents relating to the suit Sy. No.181 & 182 total measuring 2 acre 6 gunta, 1 acre 19 gunta, of the Kacharakanahalli are acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority from T.B.R.Boranna, and his brothers for the purpose of forming the layout and award copies also produced relating to the said persons T.B.R.Boranna and notice issued under Section 9 to 11 and 14 of the Land Acquisition Act by mentioning the compensation was awarded for the acquired properties by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the above said owner of the suit schedule property. Along with the above said documents produced the documents to show the possession of the above said measurement properties taken by the Bangalore Development Authority from its owner and mahazar panchanama, award notices and a notification under Section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and other notices relating to the suit schedule properties are 37 O.S. No.25169/2017 produced to show that the above said measurement properties of both the lands acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority. Further the counsel for the defendant produced the certified copy of the plaint of O.S. No.3455/2001 and WS copy of the said suit and also a judgment and decree of the said suit passed by CCH-12 on 16.11.2006 which the suit was filed by the GPA holder of T.B.R.Boranna by name Mohammed Musthaf who is the vendor of the suit schedule property had filed suit against the Bangalore Development Authority in respect of all the above said 2 properties for seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining Bangalore Development Authority from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in respect of above said total area of the both the lands and also for restraining from regularization of construction. The said suit was dismissed on account of that before filing the suit the plaintiff has not issued the mandatory notice to the Bangalore Development Authority under Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act and the plaintiff witness P.W.1 was remained absent after filing the chief-examination; ultimately the said court taken as the P.W.1 was not kept for cross- 38 O.S. No.25169/2017 examination. In total the plaintiff of the said suit not succeeded to prove the case of plaintiff. By making the above said observation the suit of the plaintiff O.S. No.3455/2001 was dismissed. The subject matter of the said suit is for the total measurement of both the above said 2 lands not for the suit schedule property of this suit. It may be case of the defendant the suit schedule property of the present suit is a part and parcel of suit Sy.No.181 & 182 and the advocate for defendant relied on the another judgment of O.S. No.3653/2008 filed by the another GPA holder of T.B.R.Boranna by name Abdul Hameed on the file of CCH-42. This person also filed a suit against the Bangalore Development Authority in respect of all the above said two lands measuring 4 acre 22 gunta in which 25 houses constructed situated in the Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. In the said suit also the plaintiff prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Bangalore Development Authority and its concerned persons from interfering into the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of above said property till regularization of construction made by him and which will be finally disposed by the screening 39 O.S. No.25169/2017 committee of the Bangalore Development Authority and also to declare that defendant Bangalore Development Authority has no right under law dispossess him from the above said property. The said suit also was dismissed by the Presiding Officer of the said court on 8th June 2018 with observation that in a suit filed against Bangalore Development Authority for permanent injunction is not maintainable when there was compulsory acquisition of the property was made as the rulings quoted in the judgment. There is a another document a sketch map of both the lands are produced; in the cross-examination of D.W.1 and D.W.2 they have admitted that the above said landed properties are kept vacant, no any sites are formed by the Bangalore Development Authority and not allotted to beneficiaries etc. It is very pertinent to note that the plaintiffs of the above said suit through their GPA holder filed a suit against the defendant Bangalore Development Authority regarding the acquired property by the Bangalore Development Authority for forming the layout. But, the present plaintiff is not admitting that the suit schedule property is acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority and it is in possession of the defendant 40 O.S. No.25169/2017 Bangalore Development Authority instead of that the P.W.1 stated that the said site is purchased through its vendor as a private site under the private layout formed by its vendor and further stated that the suit schedule property, which is standing in the name of plaintiff. It is very important to note that the very case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is purchased belonging to the T.B.R.Boranna and others through GPA holder Mohammed Mustafa, under the registered sale deed dated 27.12.2014, to substantiate the case of the plaintiff above discussed number of documents also produced. It is unfortunate on the part of the BDA only through the documentary evidence and oral evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 tried to convince to this court that a suit Sy.Nos.181 & 182 are acquired by the BDA under the due process of acquisition and the suit property of the plaintiff also comes in the said acquired land. Though the above said judgment of O.S. No.3455/2001 dated 16.11.2006 and 3653/2008 dated 8.6.08 are produced to establish that the suit schedule properties are a part and parcel of the above said all 2 acquired land. With regard to the said fact I would like to say that the GPA holders of both the suits of 41 O.S. No.25169/2017 T.B.R.Boranna who are filed a suit for entire extent of all 2 lands there is no specification about that the suit land of the plaintiff is also coming in the said all 2 lands and the plaintiff of present suit is not entitled for the suit reliefs of this suit and also Bangalore Development Authority not proved that the plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule property. No single admissions taken from the mouth of P.W.1 to P.W.3 as the said suit schedule property of the plaintiff is coming in the land of the BDA. In the cross-examination of the D.W.1 and D.W.2 as above discussed that therein appearing a constructed houses in photographs of the suit schedule property. For the sake of defence, the advocate for the defendant submitted in their argument that the plaintiff has got snapped the photos relating to other houses not relating to the suit schedule property. However, both the witnesses have admitted that surrounding to the suit schedule properties there are being a school, mall, shops, etc.; but they have not given any complaint to the BBMP, BESCOM, BWSSB, or offices of the Education Department, sale and commercial to cancel the permission and sanction granted to the above said school, mall, shops, etc. It is 42 O.S. No.25169/2017 also admitted that they have not given a complaint against the above said school, mall and shops to the above said offices to close the functioning of the school, college, mall, and shops, etc. It is also necessary to discuss in this case that no any list of the BDA beneficiaries produced in this case to show that the suit schedule property is allotted to a particular person after the acquisition of the above said lands from the BDA. Even a possession of the suit schedule property handed over to the beneficiary of the BDA also not produced in this case. The defendant BDA generally produced the preliminary, final notification and other documents to show that the above said Sy.No. measuring 2 acre 6 gunta & 1 acres 19 gunta are acquired by the BDA and the sites are formed for the 1st Stage HBR Layout. No any documents produced to show that the suit schedule property of the plaintiff is coming in the above said acquired land of the BDA and the suit schedule property is not situated in the private layout formed by the Mohammed Mustafa to rebut the case of plaintiff. Through the admission of the D.W.1 and D.W.2, it is admitted that nearby the suit schedule property there are situated a school, mall, college buildings and other private 43 O.S. No.25169/2017 properties, which discloses that the suit schedule property is also situated in the private layout, which is formed by the plaintiff's vendor and their family members and easily it can be said that the suit schedule property is purchased by the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 27.12.2014, which is not rebutted by the defendant including the document and the various sites formed by plaintiff's vendor as a private layout and including the private above stated buildings. The said evidence of P.W.1 is fully supported by the plaintiff witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3. Thus, in this case, the defendants are not rebutted the oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff placed in this case. The documentary evidence of the plaintiff are disclosing that from the year 2014 till today he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The B-register extract is not got cancelled by the BDA by submitting a objections etc., and other documents tax-paid receipts, ECs, etc., also not rebutted by the defendant to disprove the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Thus, the citations cited by the plaintiff will help to the case of the plaintiff and on the other hand, the citations of the 44 O.S. No.25169/2017 defendant will not help to the case of the defendant, for the reason of that the defendant failed to prove that suit schedule property is situated in the acquired land of the BDA. It is also necessary to discuss that P.W.1 to P.W.3 have specifically stated in their oral evidence that on 14.12.2016 at 10.30 a.m. officials of the defendant attempted to interfere and demolish the suit schedule property without issuing notice to the plaintiff with a great difficulty and efforts and by taking the help of the neighbourers and friends saved the plaintiff property. For the said allegations, the defendant has just denied in the cross-examination as their officials have not obstructed to the possession of the plaintiff and not tried to demolish the same etc. Even in the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 also denied by the defendant. However, it can be presumed that simple denial of the defendant cannot be said that the allegation of plaintiff made against the defendant is truthful. Because, the very WS contention and a efforts made by the defendant through their witness to disprove the case of the plaintiff itself discloses that there was a alleged obstruction by the defendant to the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint. It is also necessary to discuss that as per the 45 O.S. No.25169/2017 case of the BDA, actually if, the suit schedule property is coming in the acquired land of the BDA there was necessary to resurvey the acquired land including the suit schedule property to identify the location of the property. No such efforts made by the BDA and not produced the survey sketch and necessary survey report to establish that the plaintiff has illegally occupied the BDA property and he is in illegal possession of the plaintiff in the BDA property as alleged in their defence by stating that the plaintiff property is situated in the lane of defendant 1st Stage HBR Layout and the other properties of the BDA including the property in disputes are allocated to beneficiaries of the defendant BDA; therefore, it is also adversely effects on the case of the defendants and it gives scope that the defendant has not rebutted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, for all the above discussed reasons, I would like to say that the plaintiff has successfully proved the issue No.1 & 2; on the other hand, defendant failed to prove the issue No.3 and 4. Therefore, I would like to answer issue No.1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiff as a Affirmative and issue No.3 & 4 against the defendant as a Negative.
46 O.S. No.25169/2017
22. ISSUE No.5: Since above said issue No.1 to 4 detail discussed and ultimately come to conclusion that the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also given a necessary evidence regarding the obstruction caused by the BDA/defendant to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and held that the plaintiff has proved the issue No.1 and 2 and answered the same in favour of the plaintiff as a Affirmative. When the issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff as a Affirmative and issue No.3 & 4 answered against the defendant; automatically plaintiff become entitled for the suit reliefs. Therefore, I would like to answer issue No.5 also in favour of the plaintiff as a Affirmative.
23. ISSUE No.6: In view of my findings given to above said issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. Defendant and its representatives or its officials anybody claiming through the defendant are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession 47 O.S. No.25169/2017 and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. Further it is ordered that the defendant and its representatives or its officials anybody claiming through the defendant are hereby permanently restrained from demolishing alienating or allotting the suit schedule property to any other person.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictation computerized by Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 24th day of April, 2019).
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.) IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 - Smt.Kashif Nawaz
P.W.2 - Sri.Shabul Hussain
P.W.3 - Sri.Riyaz Ahmed
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 - C/C of partition deed dated 19.1.70
48 O.S. No.25169/2017
Ex.P.2 - C/C of registered sale deed dated
27.12.2014
Ex.P.3 - Tax-paid receipt
Ex.P.4 - B-register extract
Ex.P.5 - Receipt issued by BBMP dated
24.2.2015 in respect of schedule
property
Ex.P.6 - Encumbrance Certificates
Ex.P.7 to 9 - 2 Colour photos with 1 CD
List of witnesses examined for the defendant:
D.W.1 - Sri.V.Anand
D.W.2 - Sri.M.S.Shankar Murthy.
List of documents exhibited for the defendant:
Ex.D.1 - C/C of WP No.11012-13/17
Ex.D.2 - Preliminary Notification dated
27.06.1978
Ex.D.3 - Final Notification dated 09.01.1985
Ex.D.4 - C/C of stay dated 16.3.2017
Ex.D.5 & 6 - 2 Colour photos
Ex.D.7 - Letter of authorization to lead
evidence
Ex.D.8 - True copy of Preliminary Notification
dated 27.06.1978
Ex.D.9 - True copy of Final Notification dated
09.01.1985
Ex.D.10 & 11 - C/C of Awards
Ex.D.12 & 13 - True copies of mahazars
Ex.D.14 & 15 - True copies of possession taken
Ex.D.16 - True copy of notification under
Section 16(2) of LA Act
Ex.D.17 to 19 - C/C of letters dated 2.2.88, 22.12.87 &
5.1.88
Ex.D.20 to 22 - C/C of order sheet, plaint and WS in
O.S. No.5340/2016
49 O.S. No.25169/2017
Ex.D.23 & 24 - C/C of judgment and decree in
O.S.No.3455/01 dated 16.11.06
Ex.D.25 & 26 - C/C of plaint and WS in O.S.
No.3455/01
Ex.D.27 & 28 - C/C of judgment and decree in O.S.
No.3653/08
Ex.D.29 - C/C of plaint and WS in O.S.
No.3653/08
Ex.D.30 - Authorisation letter
Ex.D.31 - C/C of concerned survey number plan
Ex.D.32 - C/C of survey number handed over to
the Engineering Section.
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.)
IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
50 O.S. No.25169/2017