Appeal against trial Court judgment decreeing title suit against BDA. High Court allowed appeal, holding trial decision capricious due to non-compliance of statutory notice provisions and insufficient proof of title against Government acquisition.
Impugned judgment and decree set-aside; suit against the appellant BDA dismissed.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1934 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE 560 020. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B.LATHIF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
W/O SRI.SRIRAMA NO.184, KATIGUPPA 3RD STAGE BAGALORE 560 085
BANGALORE 560 002. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SAVITHA T H, HCGP FOR R2 R-1 V/C/O DTD.28.3.2011, SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
2
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAISNT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:12.09.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1214/92 ON THE FILE OF XXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE DECREEING THE SUIT AS AGAISNT THE APPELLANT HEREIN AND DISMISSING THE SUIT AS AGAISNT THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.1214/1992 dated 12.09.2005, wherein the suit of the plaintiff was decreed against defendant No.2 - Bengaluru Development Authority (for short 'BDA') and dismissed against defendant No.1 - the State of Karnataka.
3
bear injunction and subsequently, the plaint was amended to include the relief of declaration of title. To make it clear, it requires to be clarified that defendant No.1 is the State of Karnataka and defendant No.2 is the Commissioner of BDA, Bengaluru and the plaintiff who has filed the case is the one Smt.Mohanambal.
overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance with their respective rankings and status as held by them before the trial Court. The present appeal is filed by defendant No.2 - BDA before the trial Court.
4
"The case of the plaintiff in brief may be stated as under:
Plaintiff is the owner in natural possession and enjoyment over the suit property bearing House List No.464/15, site No.15, measuring 40 feet x 30 feet situated in Katriguppa Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, more fully described in the plaint schedule. The above said property was purchased by the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 30-071980 from its previous owner for a valuable consideration. Her name came to be entered in the revenue records. After purchase, she has constructed a building and she has been residing there along with her family members. The property was assessed to the Mandal Panchayat of Katriguppa Village and she has been paying house tax. She had made an application for the regularisation of unauthorised construction pursuant to the government Circulars dated 12-10p1989 and 27-09-1990. While she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property, officials of the defendants, without any manner of right, title and interest over the suit property attempted to demolish the building illegally. Notice under Section 64 of the BDA Act was issued to both the defendnats. Again, in the month of January 1992, officials of the defendants made an illegal attempt to demolish the building. It is further stated that the suit property which is part of Sy.No.17 of Katriguppa Village, has not been acquired by the defendants, though acquired a portion of the land bearing Sy.No.17 and that the suit property was situating within Grama Tana."
5
6. Learned trial Judge was accommodated
with the oral and documentary evidence ie., Exs.P1 to P7 marked by the plaintiff and Exs.D1 to D7 marked by the defendants.
the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sit property bearing site No.15 carved out of Sy.No.17 of Katriguppa Village has been in his lawful possession and enjoyment?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves interference?
3. Whether the defendant -BDA proves that the land in question has bested in BDA after the acquisition proceedings?
4. To what relief and order the parties are entitled for?
Additional Issue:
6
1. Whether the plaintiff proves her title to the suit property?"
evidence of PW1 and the documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P7 on behalf of the plaintiff and oral evidence of DW1 and the documentary evidence of Exs.D1 to D7 on behalf of the defendants has answered Issue No.1 in affirmative; Issue No.2 in affirmative so far as 2nd defendant is concerned; Issue No.3 in negative; Issue No.4 - as per the final order and Additional Issue No.1 in affirmative and finally directed the suit of the plaintiff. The operative portion reads as under:
"Suit is decreed against the 2nd defendant and dismissed against the 1st defendant.
It is declared that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property.
2nd defendant, his officials, subordinates or anybody claiming under him
7
are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction form interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit property."
decree, defendant No.2 - respondent No.2 herein - BDA has presented his appeal.
8
9
every likelihood of the land grabbers bouncing on BDA and the lands under which administration to make abuse of the Government and other lands to get the unfair advantage by using corrupt officials. The denial of the right of the plaintiff is on the basis of public interest coupled with legal documents.
10
be vast in extent and it was acquired by the Government for the purpose of development of layout through BDA and accordingly, the land was acquired, lay-out was formed, applications were invited and they were allotted. The very lay out proposed was Banashankari-III Stage (for short 'BSKIII Stage').
11
12
the trial Court, wherein no written statement was filed by the Government.
64. Notice of suit against the Authority.-
[1] No suit or other proceedings shall be commenced against the Authority or any member or any officer or servant of the Authority or against any person acting under the direction of the Authority, the member or officer of the Authority for anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of the Act or a rule, regulation or bye-law made thereunder without giving to the Authority one month’s previous notice in writing of the intended suit or other proceedings, and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the accrual of the cause
13
of such suit or other proceedings nor after tender of sufficient amends.
[2] A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Authority or any member or any officer or servant of the Authority in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by such officer or servant in his official capacity may be instituted with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1) but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit whether inter alia or otherwise except after giving to the Authority, officer or servant, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of relief prayed for in the suit:
Provided that the Court shall if it is satisfied after hearing the parties that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with requirements of sub-section (1)."
14
covering the entire survey number was made on 09.05.1968 and a copy of the said notification is marked as Ex.D1 and final notification is also marked as Ex.D2. It is also submitted that possession was delivered to the technical section in the BDA vide mahazar.
15
Sreerama as Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the registered sale deed in favour of Smt.Mohanambal. Exs.P3 and 4 are encumbrance certificates, Ex.P5 is extract of index of lands, Ex.P6 is the record of rights, Ex.P7 is the request for regularization.
16
17
extent of land as per Column 5 is "73 acres 12 guntas".
18
authority is entrusted for controlling and developing of lay-outs.
19
Stage. This literally shows that the plaintiff is not residing at Katriguppe area where she is claiming the property. On the other hand the schedule property is admitted to be a part of BSK-III stage in respect of which the land was acquired by the Government for development through BDA.
20
appellant in this appeal) is dismissed. The remaining portion of the impugned judgment stands unaltered.
Sd/JUDGE
GH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit filed against the Bangalore Development Authority was barred for non-compliance with Section 64 of the BDA Act, 1976.
Whether the plaintiff proved lawful title and possession over the suit property despite land acquisition records.
Whether the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit for declaration of title against a statutory authority without sufficient evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None found in textReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Commissioner, The Bangalore Development Authority
Smt.P.Mohanambal
State of Karnataka
N.K.Sudhindrarao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
