Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the judgment of the trial court contending that the land in Survey No.112 was a granted land situated at Kowdenahalli village belonged to father of the plaintiff that Munivenkatappa son of Pillappa. The Special Deputy Commissioner granted occupancy right in favour of the father of the plaintiff on 05.06.1979. The property was pledged with Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd. for obtaining loan. Munivenkatappa died on 24.12.1990. There was oral arrangement in the year 1984 between Sadananda and Anjanappa. The name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records as per MR No.11/1989-90. The appellant filed an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, which was allowed on 10.06.2010 and a revision was filed before the Deputy Commissioner in revision petition No.117/2010-11, which was upheld. A writ petition was filed in W.P. No.16102/2014. Defendant No.1- Susheelamma claimed as owner in survey No.110/1, but she was not having the title over the property which was purchased by her on 13.07.1972. The boundary is altogether different. It is the plaintiffs' schedule property and defendants' property. It is further contended that if there is mistake in survey number, there must be a modification/rectification in the survey number in the sale deed, but the same was not done. The defendants set up title over the property of the plaintiff. The property purchased by the defendant is survey No.110, but claims survey No.112. Survey No.110 has different boundary and unclaimed property also can be claimed, if the land is forfeited. The ADLR tried to survey the land, but had no power to initiate revenue proceedings. Under the sketch of the land grant, the ownership is required. When the plaintiff is in possession over the schedule property, the question of claiming dispossession cannot be accepted. Therefore, the suit is maintainable. There is no need to seek possession of the schedule property when the plaintiff himself was in possession. It is further contended that in Ex.P.18-settlement register, the names of Munivenkatappa son of Munivenkatappa and Munivenkatappa son of Pillappa are mentioned. Exs.P.19 and 21 are undisputed documents and available at undisputed point of time.

10. The land of the plaintiff is available under Ex.D.86-village map. There is no existence of the land in dispute. The boundary of the plaintiff is in conformity with the village map-Ex.D.86. The defendant wanted to shift the property from Sy. No.110 to Sy. No.112. Except mutation, there is no reference about conducting the survey. As per the survey manual, notice shall be issued to the neighbouring land owners and that was not done. Fixing the boundary in the sale deed is disputed. It is further contended that previously, the name of the plaintiff was rounded of showing the name of the government in the owner's column. The document reveals that the Assistant Commissioner issued notice on 27.01.2001 and there was an order of restoration of the name in the revenue records subject to the result of the suit. It is further contended that the claim of the defendant is based upon ADLR proceedings and it is not proved before the civil court. It is contended that how the ADLR given finding while giving the new survey number. The revenue authorities have power to transfer survey numbers and assign the survey numbers. The other defendants will not get any title over the property as the first defendant did not derive any title. As per the principles of "nemo dat quod non habet", the purchaser of the property shall determine the possession of the property if their vendor is in possession. The defendants have purchased the property without conducting any spot inspection and they claim the property wrongly according to their convenience. The judgments cited by the defendants' counsel are not applicable to the case on hand and hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal.

39. The defendant also not produced the proceedings of the ADLR or revenue proceedings before the court to show, that they really surveyed the lands belonging to the defendant and in order to survey the land, the authorities were required to issue the notice to the adjacent land owners and prepare the survey report, by showing the survey sketch, then only they have to assign new survey number, but no such proceeding took place in the case of the defendant. However, without any documents, any proceedings, whether issuing notice to the adjacent land owners, even that too the name of the plaintiff's father was shown as khatedar column of RTC as owner in the revenue record. It is duty of the authorities to issue notice to the plaintiff or plaintiff's father and then could have given new survey number. Even otherwise, once the land has been surveyed in the said village, it cannot be given as new survey number to a single land by excluding other lands, adjacent to each other. Therefore, the contention of the defendant/appellant counsel that the land in Sy.No.110/1 was not correct but it was the Sy.Nos.112/1 and 112/2 and that the defendant has not explained how the Sy.No.110/1 which was measuring 2 acres 19 guntas originally including 3 guntas kharab land has been reduced to 2 acres 1 guntas and assigning 2 different survey numbers as Sy.Nos.112/1 and 112/2 from Sy.No.110/1.