Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. Upon perusal of the cross-examination of the D.W.1 dated 13.1.2017 it appears that a certified copy of survey sketch dated 7.3.1955 of the Mysore Govt. is produced, which is marked at Ex.D.5 and proceedings of the Xerox attested copy of the above said survey sketch relating to March-1950 also produced, which is marked at Ex.D.6 and certified copies of the Gazette Notification dated July 26th, 1894 and 8.6.1950 are marked at Ex.D.7 and 8 and joint survey sketch and survey report of the D.W.6 conducted with the other surveyor for the above said four lands also produced in this case; they are marked as Ex.D.12 and 13. It is also stated that through the above said documents the Mysore Maharaja has handed over the above said suit schedule properties situated in the four lands along with the other lands as mentioned in the Gazette Notification at Ex.D.5 to 8 to the Defence Department; i.e., PRTC of Bengaluru. Defendants have produced the one covering letter and other documents to show the situation and boundaries of the above said acquired land along with other 3 documents, to show that, the said lands were handed over to the Defence Department as per the order of the Commandar Brigadier, which can appear in Ex.D.14 to D.25 in colour photos also. Further stated that in cross- examination that he had obtained the authorization by the defendant No.3 to depose in this case and he has been working under the 3rd defendant in PRTC of the defence, since last one year and he is looking after the entire property of the defence situated in the Bengaluru City and further stated that he knows very well about that all the plaintiff of the 3 suits had filed a original suit for Sy.No.1 of the Savaralane and Sy.No.42 of the Matadahalli Village with a prayer that to declare them as a owner of the said property and defendant No.1 to 3 may be restrained by granting injunction. D.W.1 further stated that in land Sy.No.42 Petrol Bunk and Shopping Complex are erected and the same are constructed in the land of the defendants coming under the defendant No.1 to 3 and which supervising by the PRTC under the 3rd defendant and a officers of the Bengaluru Rural Asst. Executive Engineer of the Building Division have prepared the sketch and report in this regard and D.W.1 admitted that they have not produced the documents like survey notice and report including the survey mahazar panchanama conducted at the time of making a joint survey under the leadership of the then Tahsildhar of Bengaluru North Taluk in this case. It is also stated that the said documents are not found in their office, if available he goes to produce the same. D.W.1 further stated in his cross-examination dated 1.2.2017 that they have not produced the any survey map and mahazar panchanama conducted in respect of the suit schedule property. Upon perusal of the Ex.D.5 the seal and signature of the office and officer are appearing on it; but it is stated by the D.W.1 that he does not know in the Ex.D.5 whether it is a seal and signature appearing on Ex.D.5 are belonging to the Engineers of Mysore Govt. or a Engineers of Karnataka Govt. or it is belonging to the Central Govt. D.W.1 it is stated that according to Ex.D.5 a land Sy.No.42 of Matadahalli is shown as 2 acres 6 guntas and it was acquired by the Central Govt., and Ex.D.5 discloses that a property of the Mysore Govt., which is coming within the Hebbal jurisdiction of the Bengaluru, is handed over to the defendants; i.e., Defence Department of India. It is also answered that there is a RFA No.693/2007 is filed before the High Court of Karnataka. In the said case, they have produced the Ex.D.5. But, witness voluntaries that he has produced the lamination copies of the above said documents relating to original map which are produced in the above said case before the Hon'ble High Court. It is denied that a land Sy.No.42 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas, and the same is appearing as mentioned in Ex.D.5. It is also stated that he has not produced the documents to show that the said land is handed over by the Central Govt. to the PRTC Bengaluru. In entire cross- examination at page No.18 and 19 he stated about the Gazette Preliminary and Final Notification and a award was paid to the owners of the land. Further he answered that he does not know that how much amount was sanctioned by the land acquisition officers and how much award amount is paid etc., is not stated and admits that Ex.D.6 is produced to show that Mysore Govt. has handed over the properties mentioned in it to the Central Govt. Department of Defense. It is admitted that in the above said document it is mentioned that Mysore Maharaja had handed over the property of Infantry Band. It is admitted that Sy.No.42 of the Matadahalli Village is not mentioned in the judgment of Ex.D.2 and D.9 and in Ex.D.10 and 11 in RTC columns, it is mentioned in column No.9 and 12 of the said RTC column that the lands appearing in the said both the documents is belonging to the Govt. and nowhere written as the said land is belonging to the Defence Department. It is admitted in his further cross-examination at page No.21 that in all the RTC columns it is mentioned that the said land is kept with Bengaluru North Taluk for their use. Further he stated that the land of Savaralane is declared as a land belonging to defense. But, it is admitted that in any portion of the cross- examination as it is not mentioned either in mutation order or RTC as the said property is belonging to Defense land. In further cross-examination of the D.W.1 it is stated that according to Ex.P.25 a Matadahalli Sy.No.42 measuring 5 acres 22 guntas is proposed for Matadahalli Layout and he admits that there is a seal and signature of the Military Officers of JC Nagara have put up on Ex.P.34, it is also admitted that one Subhedhar Bowrilal represented for the PRTC and he put his signature on Ex.P.34 and in Sl.No.1 written as a Lakshmipathi. D.W.1 makes a allegation that Ex.P.34 is the forged documents and a survey map of City Survey Sy.No.42 of Matadahalli Village dated 15.10.2003 is also produced in this case. In the said Survey Map in Sl.No.3 mentioned about the property measuring 2 acres 6 guntas shown with ABCD letters by using black colour is in the possession of their department and another portion of land mentioned with KADEFGHI & J is a property belonging to the Channakrishnappa, Papaiah, Narayanappa and Lakshman, who are the khatha holder of the said property total measuring 3 acres 10 gunta and a 06 gunta mentioned in GKE & F portion, there is shown a road. D.W.1 further answered in his cross-examination that he has produced the petition copy of the plaint O.S. No.355/66 and WS submitted in the said suit including the issues are got marked as Ex.P.37 to P.39 and other documents of O.S. No.1140/82; i.e., plaint, WS and memo including the deposition statement of D.W.1 and a judgment and decree of the above said suit are marked as Ex.P.42 to 45 and suit Sy.No.42/A is shown as 1 acre 9.5. gunta situated at Sulthan Palya, Mattadahalli Village and the said property is a property of Rudhrappa, which are in Sy.No.42 and 41/A and on the Southern side a property of Venkatesh. In cross-examination at page No.28 it is appearing that D.W.1 admitted that 5 acre 22 gunta of Matadahalli Sy.No.42 and remaining 2 acre 6 gunta of the same is handed over to the Defence Department of the India. It is further answered that he does not know the boundaries of the Sy.No.42 measuring 5 acre 22 gunta and he admits that in plaint and WS para No.1 it is mentioned that Matadahalli Sy.No.42 measuring 5 acre 22 gunta and same is got written as belonging to the defendant. D.W.1 further answered that in Sy.No.42 total measuring 5 acre 22 gunta, out of which 2 acres 6 gunta is handed over to Defence Department and he admits that he has not produced any documents to show that above said 2 acre 6 gunta is handed over to Defence Department. Further he stated that the certified copies of the judgment of RFA No.317/89 and O.S. No.1140/82 are produced. The above said judgment of original suit 1140/82 is challenged in RFA No.317/89 in which above said suit was challenged, therein held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that there is no any link in between the suit schedule property of this suit and a suit schedule property of above said suits. In cross-examination at page No.30 in last 6 lines a specifically stated about the Ex.D.12 and 13, which is challenged by filing a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban. It is also stated that in Ex.D.12 and 13 of Matadahalli Sy.No.42 a total measuring 2 acre 16 gunta is mentioned in column No.5. It is further stated that a land of Savaralane Sy.No.1 and a land Sy.No.42 of Matadahalli are also mentioned in the document Sy.No.7 by mentioning a 11 acre 43 gunta, which is shown with a red ink is sold out and also stated about the alleged encroachment as stated in his chief-examination and documents of writ petition about which the same can be seen at Ex.P.46. D.W.1 admitted that in the writ petition the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed a common judgment in all three writ petitions by holding that before disposal of all these 3 suits by the civil courts no any further survey shall be conducted. It is also admitted that in RTC of Sy.No.42 of the Matadahalli Village is shown as measuring 2 acres 16 gunta, coming in the Bengaluru North Taluk within the jurisdiction of the KG Road; but he has stated that no any documents obtained from the concerned office and produced in this case. But, the same is mentioned in MLR of their land and for which he stated that if possible he can produce the same. It is also stated that in the year 1950 in a suit schedule property there were situated a Mangalore Tiles roofed house; later on those were demolished and a ACC sheet house were constructed and all the said houses are coming within the jurisdiction of the BBMP. It is stated that the said houses are constructed by the Mysore Maharaja. In further cross-examination at page No.37 to 43 it is stated regarding a revision petition filed before the Urban Deputy Commissioner, which the documents a notice and petition copies are marked at Ex.P.51 to 56. In Ex.D.12 and 13 it is mentioned that measuring 2 acres 6 gunta of Matadahalli Village in Sy.No.42 is belonging to Defence Department and later on a 10 gunta is got added and the same is shown in Ex.D.12 and 13, according to the said addition of 10 gunta it become 2 acre 16 gunta. Total evidence given in cross-examination of page No.39 to 43 is that a 2 acre 16 gunta of the Matadahalli Village is belonging to the Defense Department. It is also stated that the plaintiff are challenged by filing a writ petition against the joint survey map and joint survey report prepared by the Tahsildhar North Taluk, Bengaluru, and also filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban, with prayer to set-aside the above said joint survey map and report by making a prayer that may be ordered for conducting resurvey to disclose the property of the plaintiff and Defence Department. It is denied by the D.W.1 that the suit schedule property is succeeded by the plaintiff and their father from their great grandfather and it is got partitioned in the 1972 in between a grandfathers of the plaintiff and again in the year 2007 a registered partition is taken place in between the plaintiff and his family members; i.e., father and other brothers; accordingly, the plaintiff has obtained the construction permission and constructed the building in the suit schedule property. Thereafter, D.W.1 stated that he has produced the number of documents relating to the above said discussed original suits, and RA and RFA including the khatha extracts of the suit schedule properties, which are at Ex.D.57 to 105. Particularly, D.W.1 stated about Ex.D.70 to 80, therein made entry about the suit schedule properties in MLR kept in their office and also a another MLR produced before the High Court of Karnataka and also D.W.1 stated that notices were issued to the father of the plaintiff under Section 173 of the KMC Act dated 14.3.2003 and a receipt relating to the same are produced; since the said documents were Xerox documents, the same are not marked and a Ex.D.85 to 95 are the RTI letter submitted to Tahsildhar and Special Deputy Commissioner and Appellate Authority of the Deputy Commissioner for supplying the suit schedule property documents are produced and other documents are the certified copy of the compromise petition filed in O.S. No.10582/87 and order sheet of the said suit are marked at Ex.D.97 to D.99 and a property register of RPMB Major Garrision Engineer North Taluk, is produced. He stated that defendants have produced the notification dated 18.5.1893 of the Old Mysore State, which shows that a Savara Parade Ground property of the Bengaluru City was handed over to the Defence Department and another notification dated 26.7.1894 discloses that a imperial service cavalry lines and parade ground of Bengaluru is handed over to the Defence Department and another notification dated 14.6.1899 and dated 29.9.1899 are disclosing about the other properties handed over to the Defence by the Old Mysore Govt. On the basis of the above said documents which are marked at Ex.D.1 to D.105; D.W.1 is admitted that their Defence Department Estate Officer is the custodian of the MLR and he is making a supervisation of the defence land, which are mentioned in the MLR situated in Bengaluru City and a copy of the MLR will be given to his office also. It is further stated that if any illegal activities started about the defence properties he has to bring to the notice of the Estate Officer immediately; but, he has stated that he has no power to make any correction and also making complaint to anybody in this regard, without obtaining the permission of the Ministry of Defence. It is denied that though he is having a such knowledge he has made a false complaint about the same as per Ex.D.85 to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and he admitted that Estate Officer has not given a authorization as per Ex.D.1 to him; but he stated that the same is given by the Parachute Commandant and he admits that he has not filed any case either before the Karnataka High Court or a Deputy Commissioner, Urban, Bengaluru, by challenging the Ex.P.34 and P.35 and he denied that colluding with his office staff he has prepared the Ex.D.96 & 97. He admits that Garrision Engineer is a officer of their defence department and he has prepared the map of the Military Property of Bengaluru City as per Ex.D.105. When the counsel for the plaintiff suggested to D.W.1 in the cross- examination that on 14.5.1892 there was a circular of the Mysore State Govt. except the Deputy Commissioners no other officers are having a authority for starting acquisition proceedings of the any lands coming under the Mysore Govt. For which, D.W.1 answered that a power of acquisition was withdrawn from the Deputy Commissioner and it was entrusted to District Land Acquisition Officer. It is admitted that according to the order of Mysore Govt. except the Deputy Commissioners no other officers had power to acquire the any land coming under the Mysore Govt., for using of the same to any public purpose.