Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The contents of written statement of defendant No.4 in brief are as under :-

That, suit of plaintiff is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine. The defendant disputes very existence and identity of suit property. There is no property corresponding to description of suit property exists either in or anywhere in vicinity of land in Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village. Land bearing Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village, allegedly out of which suit property has been transferred by Government for BMIC project. The defendant No.4 entered into a Frame Work agreement dated 03.04.1997 with State of Karnataka to implement Bengaluru-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project. Validity of Frame Work agreement and BMICP project has been challenged before Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in many writ petitions and appeals. The Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court have time and again up held validity of FWA and BMICP project in public interest. It is further contended, Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village was totally measuring 61 acres 10 guntas, which is land belonging to Government of Karnataka. The Government of Karnataka vide notification issued under Section 3(1) of KIAD Act, 1966 published in official gazette dated 27.10.1998 declared land in Sy.No.121 measuring 61 acres 10 guntas as industrial area. On 07.10.1999 Government of Karnataka passed order according approval to lease certain land of KIADB for onward transfer of same in favour of defendant No.4 for BMIC Project. An extent of Government land measuring 45 acres in Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village has been sanctioned for BMIC Project as per Government order dated 07.10.1999. As per possession certificate dated 07.06.2000 land was handed over to defendant No.4 by KIADB. It is further contended, there is no land bearing Sy.No.121/5 either part of or in the vicinity of Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village. Alleged transfers if any and alleged grant in favour of Sanjeevappa are all untrue and invalid. The defendant No.4 is in lawful possession of 45 acres of land in Sy.No.121 of Kengari Village. As such, question of this defendant interfering with alleged possession of plaintiffs over suit property does not arise. There is no cause of action to file present suit. On these grounds, it is requested to dismiss suit filed by plaintiffs.

11. It is specifically stated, after death of Sanjeevappa, there are several sale transactions in respect of suit property and ultimately Nanjundappa sold suit property in favour of K.G. Dharmichand as per Ex.P.1. It is specifically pleaded by plaintiffs, based on Darkhast grant of suit property in favour of Sanjeevappa there was mutation entry bearing No.8/1937-38.

12. It is evident from evidence of P.W.1, when plaintiffs have claiming there was Darkhast grant of land bearing Sy.No.121/5 measuring 5 acres 10 guntas in favour of Sanjeevappa, it shall have to be presumed said land belonged to Government. It is specifically contended by contesting defendants that, Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village, totally measuring 61 acre 10 guntas , which is land belonging to Government of Karnataka. It is further contended, the Government of Karnataka vide notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 published in official gazette dated 27.10.1988 declared land in Sy.No.121 measuring 61 acres 10 guntas as Industrial lands. It is further contended by contesting defendants that, subsequently Government of Karnataka passed an order dated 07.10.1999 and thereby according approval to lease certain Government Lands in favour of KIADB for onward transfer of the same in favour of defendant No.4 for the purpose of BMIC Project.

36. As already discussed, D.W.2 in his cross- examination has deposed, some extent of property in total extent of Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village granted to private persons and same is forthcoming in Ex.D.7, that itself not sufficient to say plaintiffs have established grant of property under Dharkast to Sanjeevappa. When plaintiffs have failed to establish before court that, there was Dharkast grant order and suaguvali chit issued by competent authority to Sanjeevappa, just based on mutation, records of rights and sale deeds, tax paid receipts plaintiffs cannot claim suit land belonged to them and same is not notified by KIADB and possession of property not handed over to defendant No.4 BMIC Project. On the other hand, there are sufficient material on records as discussed above to say the Government has handed over remaining land of 45 acres in Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village to defendant No.4 under lease for BMIC project. Hence, I answer Issues No.4 and 6 in the affirmative.

39. ISSUES NO.2 AND 3 :- As these issues are inter-related to each other and involves common appreciation of facts and evidence on record, findings on one issue are bearing on other issues, in order to avoid repetition of facts and for convenience sake, all issues are taken together for common discussion.

40. As already discussed, the plaintiffs failed to establish by material document that, suit property was originally granted to Sanjeevappa. On the other hand, there is material on record to say, Sy.No.121 of Kengeri Village is government property and out of total extent of Sy.No.121, property to an extent of 45 acres was transferred by Government to defendant No.4 for BMIC project. Plaintiffs failed to establish based on sale deed as per Ex.P.1 and revenue records that, K.G. Dharmichand and after his death they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property. When plaintiffs failed to establish their lawful possession over suit property and defendants proved, government has handed over suit property to defendant No.4 for BMIC project, plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed in plaint and question of alleged interference by defendants in possession of plaintiffs over suit property does not arise. Hence, I answer issues No.2 and 3 in the negative.