Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Admittedly, the alleged sale deeds executed in the year 1993 & 1994 and the suits have been filed in the year 1997. On the contrary the defendants 3 to 5 have contended that they purchased B schedule property from 2nd defendant for valuable sale consideration and have further perfected their title by virtue of sale deed executed by the BDA.

11. It is undisputed fact that D. Omprakash acquired the aforesaid lands in the year 1962 i.e., on 20.06.1962 and 11.07.196 and later the land in Sy No. 4 was notified buy the then CITB for acquisition vide its gazette notification 30.04.1964. Subsequently CITB passed an order to reconvey the land in Sy. No. 4 in favour of D. Omprakash. As Sri. Omprakash failed to remit the required charges to the CITB; the CITB later executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants.

31

These aspects have not been disputed by both the parties. According to the plaintiffs the defendants have played fraud on the plaintiffs in collusion with the authorities of the then CITB and now BDA.

12. Under such circumstances, the only point for consideration in these suits that whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit when these schedule lands were acquired under the land acquisition proceedings.

13. It is seen from the plaint averments that the defendants purchased the suit schedules lands under the registered sale deed dated:

24.4 In the instant cases, a perusal of the plaint averments themselves indicate that the plaintiffs have unequivocally, unambiguously and clearly admitted that the schedule properties had been acquired by the CITB (BDA).

The paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, reads as under:-

"4. The 4 Acre 14 Guntas and 44 square yards of landing Survey No. 4 (Re-Survey No. 4/2) of Jarakabande Kaval Village of Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk totally measuring which is more fully described in the SCHEDULE 'A' hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY originally belonged to the husband of 1st Plaintiff and father of Plaintiffs 2 to 6. Out of SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY, 3 acres of land being originally purchased by the husband of the 1st Plaintiff and father of Plaintiffs to 6 late Sri D. Omprakash under two registered Sale Deeds dated 20.06.1962 and 11.07.1962. Subsequently the said lands along with other certain adjustments and adjoining lands were sought to be acquired by the then City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore (CITB), (now the Bangalore Development Authority- BDA) for the formation of an industrial layout. The land which was sought to be acquired was not utilised for the said purpose. Hence, on the basis of the representation made by said late Sri Omprakash, the then City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore (CITB) (BDA) resolved and decided to reconvey the SCHEDULE 'A' Property measuring 4 Acres and 14 Guntas 14 Square yards to said late Sri D. Omprakash comprising the original extent of 3 Acres and an additional extent of 1 Acre 14 Guntas 44 Square yards which formed on conttigeous piece of land which is SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY. This re- conveyance was on a condition that late Sri. D. Omprakash paid a sum of Rs. 1,07,003/- (Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Three only) to the City Improvement Trust Board and on other conditions.
(i) The schedule properties were acquired by the erstwhile CITB (BDA) as long back as in 1964 - 65 and the properties stood vested absolutely in the CITB (BDA);
(ii) Though Omprakash, father of the appellants requested the BDA to re-convey the schedule properties to him, the BDA made an offer of re-conveyance, subject to the condition that the said Omprakash had to pay Rs.1,07,003/- to the BDA which was never paid by him;
(iii) Despite the BDA extending time for payment of re-