Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

After vesting of Inam Lands, part of old Survey No.1 and 9 were came to be included in the extended Gramatana as per the survey sketch prepared by survey department during 1962. As per the said survey sketch M.S.Lingegowda became the owner of 4 acres 5 guntas, which is in the extended gramatana out of old Survey No.1 and 9. M.S.Lingegowda has been in possession of the said extent of 4 acres 5 guntas since 1917.

After the death of M.S.Lingegowda, the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters filed an application for effecting khatha in respect of the said land. The Taluk Surveyor prepared a sketch as per the order of the ADLR in CR No.10/1990-91 dt.11.1.1991 to find out the extent of extended Gramatana in respect of old Survey No.1 and 9 referring to old village map of before the date of vesting of the village, prepared in the year 1876 and village map prepared after final cadastral survey and settlement in the year 1962. Accordingly, on 11.01.1991 a sketch was prepared in this regard.

12. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendant filed written arguments stating that the Sy.No. 27 and 19 of Vasanthapura village was acquired by the BDA and hence the suit is not maintainable under Section 9 of CPC. The ADLR has no authority to issue direction to the panchayat to enter the name of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property in the mutation register.

13. The plaintiff has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as P.W.1, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. In support of his case, the plaintiff has also produced Exs.P.1 to 46. Ex.P.1 is the c/c of orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division dated 22.2.1999, which shows that the plaintiff and his brother filed RA.No.59/1991-92 and their brother and sisters filed RA.60/1991-92, wherein challenged the endorsement dated 24.6.1991 issued by the Subramanyapura Grama Panchayat regarding non transfer of khatha and the same was disposed of by observing that the appeals are not maintainable and the appellants are at liberty to approach the proper forum to get the khatha of the land as per the Rule 82 to 93(a) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1966. The Ex.P.2 - building license dated 13.2.2006 taken by the plaintiff to construct building in the suit schedule property. Ex.P.3 - receipt regarding payment of Rs.18,000/- towards the development tax. Ex.P.4 - receipt regarding payment of amount with respect to the construction of building. Ex.P.5 - plan of building, Ex.P.6 to P.11 - tax paid receipts of the suit schedule property shows the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P.12 - endorsement of Tahsildar regarding non availability of the orders of ADLR dated 13.11.2001 in the office. Ex.P.13 -c/c of sale deed dated 10.9.2016 shows that one Lakshman Rao sold the entire Jodi Vasanthapura Village along with other properties in favour of grand father of the plaintiffs by name M.L.Shamegowda. Ex.P.14 - c/c of partition deed dated 3.11.2017 shows that the said Shamegowda and his children partitioned the family properties. Ex.P.15 - c/c of orders passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition in Case No.27/1960-61 dated 19.8.1961 shows that the father of the plaintiffs claimed all the temporary Inam Field Sy.Nos.1 to 74 and his claim was registered and proceedings was conducted and final order was passed confirming rights on the Inamdar regarding the Sy.No. claimed by the Inamdars except to the Gramatana items, which was not within the jurisdiction of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition. Ex.P.16 - c/c of partition deed dated 29.6.1965 and Ex.P.17 - c/c of the rectification deed dated 26.12.1974 shows that the plaintiff and his brothers partitioned all the lands except Gramatana items as per the final cadastral survey settlement notified Sy.Nos. Ex.P.18 - c/c of Jodi Vasanthapura Village Map discloses that after the final cadastral survey, the Sy.No.1 to 74 were reduced into 1 to 61 and the entire Village got merged with Sy.No.1 to 61 and the same was made in the name of father of the plaintiff. Ex.P.19 to P.30 - photographs of the suit schedule property, wherein the construction is going on. Ex.P.31 - orders passed by the ADLR in case No.113/2001-02 dated 13.11.2001 shows that the 4 acres 5 guntas of land, which is shown by the then ADLR on 11.1.1991 in the sketch belongs to the father of the plaintiff, wherein the residential house, vacant site, cattle shed is situated. Ex.P.32, 33, 35, 36 & 38 - house/land tax assessment extracts of Subramanyapura Grama Panchayat, shows the name of plaintiff to the suit schedule property. Ex.P.34 - c/c of orders passed by the Subramanyapura Grama Panchayat dated 17.12.2002 which shows that it ordered for change of khatha of the suit schedule property in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P.37 - khatha certificate of the suit schedule property shows the name of the plaintiff, Ex.P.39 to 44 - tax paid receipts of the suit schedule property shows the name of the plaintiff, Ex.P.45 and 46 - Form No.4 of Income Tax Department shows the name of the plaintiff, Ex.P.47 - c/c of Notification under Section 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act of Banashankari 5th Stage Layout of the lands of Vasanthapura and other villages.

15. The pleadings averred in the plaint, the affidavit evidence of PW1 and Ex.P.1 to 46 reveals that the grand father of the plaintiff M.L.Shamegowda purchased entire Jodi Vasanthapura Village measuring 384 acres along with other properties under registered sale deed dated 10.9.1996 from one Lakshman Rao and thereafter their grand father, their father and their uncle partitioned the entire properties and in that the Jodi Vasanthapura Village fallen to the share of plaintiff's father and with the introduction of Inams Abolition Act 1954 the plaintiff's father claimed the landed properties and accordingly the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition in case No.27/1960-61 dated 19.8.1961 conferred the rights of the Inamdar on him except the gramatana items, which was not within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition and accordingly the name of the plaintiff's father was entered in Form No.8 - Register of Jodi Vasanthapura Village. Thereafter, the plaintiff and his brothers partitioned all the lands among them except gramatana items as per the partition deed dated 29.6.1965 and rectification deed dated 26.12.1974. Ex.P.18 further discloses that in the year 1962 new map of Jodi Vasanthapura Village was prepared and in that the old Sy.No.1 and 9 were merged into extended gramatana, which are in total measuring 4 acres 38 guntas and the extended gramatana became 11 acres 10 guntas from the earlier 6 acres 12 guntas of gramatana area, which includes the suit schedule property. The construction of houses, sheds for tethering cattle, servant quarters, agricultural implement rules and dry grass yard and etc. was built by the plaintiff was not disputed by the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff and his brothers approached the Secretary of Subramanyapura Group Panchayat for transfer of khatha in the extended gramatana and the same was rejected by issuing the endorsement. The plaintiff and others being aggrieved by the orders of Secretary, Subramanyapura Group Village Panchayat preferred RA.59/1991-92 and RA.60/1991- 92 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division, which was disposed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the plaintiff and others approached ADLR for change of khatha of the suit schedule property to their names in case No.13/2001-02, wherein it was observed that the earlier ADLR has identified the suit schedule property in the sketch and accordingly the Secretary of Subramanyapura Panchayat was directed to change the khatha of the suit schedule property on 13.11.2001 and in pursuance of the same the khatha of the suit schedule property was changed to the name of the plaintiff and it was assessed to tax and the plaintiff paid tax to the suit schedule property to the Subramanyapura Grama Panchayat and thereafter the plaintiff obtained building license form the Panchayat to construct building in the suit schedule property by paying the development charges and building license fee and started construction in the suit schedule property and after coming into existence of BBMP, the Vasanthapura Village comes within the limits of it and it collected tax of the suit schedule property from the plaintiff. Even though defendant contended that Sy.No.27 and 19 are acquired by the BDA and the same is deposed by the DW1 & 2, who are the officials of BDA and accordingly Ex.D.1 to 31 are produced, but in the written statement it is not specifically contended that the suit schedule property is the portion of either Sy.No.19 or Sy.No.27. When there is no specific pleadings that the suit schedule property is the portion of either Sy.No.19 or Sy.No.27, then it cannot be said that the defendant acquired the suit schedule property or the suit schedule property is portion of the acquired land. During the course of the cross- examination of the PW1, it is came as under:

20. So, from the above citation it is clear that the provisions of building sites situated in towns are also applicable to the lands situated in villages and the ADLR is having authority to pass appropriate orders after due enquiry. Accordingly in the present case on hand, the ADLR passed the orders as per Ex.P.31 for the change of khatha of the suit schedule property in the name of the plaintiff after due enquiry.

21. As stated above, I already came to the conclusion that the suit schedule property is not the portion of Sy.No.19 or 27 of Vasanthapura Village, which were acquired by the BDA and then the suit of the plaintiff is not barred under Section 9 of CPC r/w Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and the same is maintainable before this court.