Appeal against dismissal of a suit for declaration of title by adverse possession and permanent injunction regarding acquired land. The High Court upheld the trial court's view that possession was taken post-acquisition, invalidating the claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
R.F.A. NO.753/2005 (DEC)
BETWEEN
: 2 :
ALL ARE R/O: BURADIKATTI, TQ: HIREKERUR, PIN CODE: 581111. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI : DINESH M KULKARNI) AND : 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD.
4(A) SMT.LALITA W/O CHANNABASAYYA MALIMATH, AGE: 75 YEARS,
: 3 :
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BURDIKATTI VILALGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4(B) SMT.JAYAMMA
OCC: HOUSE WORK, R/O: BURDIKATTI VILALGE,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4(C) PUTTAYYA
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BURDIKATTI VILALGE,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4(D) MANJAYYA
S/O CHANNABASAYYA MALIMATH, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE, R/O: BURDIKATTI VILALGE,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4(E) ERAMMA
D/O CHANNABASAYYA MALIMATH, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BURDIKATTI VILALGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
: 4 :
BASATTAPPA KORISHETTAR AGED ABOUT: 63 YEARS, R/O: BURADIKATTI VILALGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. PIN CODE: 581111
: 5 :
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O: BURADIKATTI.
: 6 :
: 7 :
R/O: BURADIKATTI VILALGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. PIN CODE: 581111
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVJAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, GA FOR R1-R3;
SRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A & C);
SRI F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12, R14 & R18;
R4(B, D & E) – SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT; R9A, R9B, R9C, R9D, R9E, 9RF, R15, R16 & R17
ARE SERVED;
R9G & R9H – DISMISSED; R6 & R13 – APPEAL STANDS ABATED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC. 96 R/W. ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 6.1.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO. 6/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & PRL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND RELIEF OF INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THIS COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
: 8 :
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.6/96, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur, have preferred this appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C., being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 6/1/2005.
2 Acres 25 Guntas of land in Survey No.21B, 2 acres 01 Guntas in Survey No.28B and 5 acres each in Survey Ho.29B and survey No.48B totally to an extent of 14 acres 26 Guntas of Buradakatti village, Hirekerur taluk was acquired by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 vide acquisition proceedings LXSR 175 dated 14/11/1948 for the purpose of allotment of residential plots to the weaker section of the society. 63 plots were carved in the said land. But, the plaintiffs state that even after acquisition, defendant Nos.1 to 3 never took possession
: 9 :
from them, and therefore, they continued to be in possession by cultivating the said land.
: 10 :
: 11 :
: 12 :
a clear finding that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property.
: 13 :
not properly appreciated the evidence, and therefore, the decree has to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
: 14 :
point out that allotment had been cancelled because of violation of grant. Therefore, it is his arguments that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court.
: 15 :
continuously in possession of the land after acquisition. All the lands are agricultural lands, and therefore, after the acquisition, all the rights and interest stood vested with the Government. It is to be mentioned here that the plaintiffs do not say anything about receiving the compensation amount. It is clearly stated in the written statement that compensation has been paid. So once the compensation amount was received by the plaintiffs, they cannot say that they are in possession. Probably for the reason that the allottees of the plots did not construct the houses within time, the land might have remained vacant. For this reason, the Government, once again initiated action to cancel the allotment and to re-allot those plots to other needy persons.
: 16 :
RTC Extracts for the year 1994-95 as per Exs.P-1 to P-4 do not enure to the benefit of the plaintiffs in any way. If really they were in possession, for the reason that the Government did not take over possession, they should have proved continuous possession, right from the day after acquisition. But, such evidence is not adduced before the Court. Even otherwise, when the acquisition is not disputed and the plaintiffs do not state anything about receiving compensation, it can be presumed according to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that the Government took over possession of said lands by following the procedure contemplated under law. Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, clearly states that the fact of such taking possession may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner in the Official Gazette and such notification shall be evidence of such fact. This being the position of law, the plaintiffs cannot say that they are in possession.
: 17 :
vs. The Secretary Department of Revenue and Others, reported in ILR 2005 KAR 5692 to argue that if the possession was not taken, the acquisition would lapse. But, this is not the case here. Though the plaintiffs state that the possession was not taken, but the documents produced by the defendants clearly disclose that possession was taken and the allotment made in favour of the beneficiaries was cancelled because of their failure to construct houses within time. It does not mean that possession was not at all taken. In the background of this factual position, the learned trial Judge is right in dismissing the suit. Therefore, the following :
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Vmb/hnm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs could establish continuous possession of acquired land to claim title by adverse possession after compensation was paid.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's finding that possession was taken by the Government following land acquisition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V. Gunda Reddy vs. The Secretary Department of Revenue and OthersReferred¶11
ILR 2005 KAR 5692 · Who else cites this
SHIVARAYAPPA NAGAPPA SONAGAR AND OTHERS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
