Dismissed

Raju v. the State of Karnataka by Its

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2021RSA/829/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC filed by two appellants challenging the dismissal of their suits for declaration, possession, and injunction. The trial court found the disputed sites were part of land acquired by the government for police quarters. The High Court issued no separate order for the other prescribed fields as per schema constraints. The core dispute revolv

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed at the stage of admission as no substantial question of law was made out; the judgment and decree of the courts below were confirmed.

Raju Vs the State of Karnataka by Its — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

R.S.A. NO.762 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) C/W

¶7

R.S.A. NO.829 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

IN R.S.A NO.762/2013

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MAHADEVAMMA W/O M.KARIYAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT DASHAWARA MALUR HOBLI - 571 501 CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. V.F.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT RAMANAGARAM - 571511

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARAM - 571511

¶17

¶18

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHANNAPATNA TALUK CHANNAPATNA - 571501

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.K.DILIP KUMAR, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶22

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.04.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.2/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.26/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHANNAPATNA.

¶23

IN R.S.A NO.829/2013

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

RAJU S/O LATE BOGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR :WIFE GIRIJAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT FORT ROAD CHANNAPATNA TOWN - 571 501 RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶26

... APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI. V.F.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

¶30

¶31

REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶32

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT RAMANAGARAM - 571511

¶33

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARAM - 571511

¶34

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHANNAPATNA TALUK CHANNAPATNA - 571501

¶35

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHANNAPATTANA CIRCLE - 571501 NOW RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶36

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION RICHMOND ROAD

¶37

BENGALURU - 560 025

¶38

... RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI.K.DILIP KUMAR, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶40

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.04.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.3/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.10/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHANNAPATNA.

¶41

¶42

THESE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

These two appeals are filed by the plaintiffs, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2013 passed in R.A No.2/2013 and R.A No.3/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatana, Ramanagara District, confirming the common judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.26/1995 and O.S.No.10/1996, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. Since the common judgment and decree passed by both Courts have been challenged, these appeals are taken up together for disposal.

¶45

For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.

¶46

It is the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.26/1995

¶47

that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of site No.15 formed out of Sy. No.11 of Mangalawarpet; and it is the

¶48

¶49

contention of the plaintiff in O.S.No.10/1996 that the site No.16 in Sy. No.11 of Mangalawarpet is purchased by plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 23.01.1985 from one Marigowda. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said Marigowda has purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 20.08.1972 from his vendor Karigowda s/o Govindegowda. It is also stated that the respondent Authorities have initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of the suit schedule properties in the year 1972. Accordingly, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, came to be issued for the purpose of construction of police quarters. It is further averred in the plaint that the suit schedule property is totally measuring 2 acre 30 guntas and out of which, 1 acre 34 guntas was acquired by respondent Authorities for the purpose of construction of police quarters. However, the remaining 36 guntas were left out by the defendants and the suit schedule property i.e., site Nos.15 and 16, comes in the 36 guntas of land which was left out by the respondents and as such, the defendants have no right or interest insofar as suit

¶50

¶51

schedule properties. It is also pleaded that defendants, without any semblance of right or interest, are interfering with the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.26/1995 and O.S.No.10/1996 respectively before the trial Court seeking relief of declaration, possession and injunction.

¶52

On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendants that the said suit schedule property was acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of police quarters as well as 36 guntas of land in Sy. No.11 was developed for the purpose of forming sites for A.K. Colony, as per Notifications dated 12.01.1972 and 23.11.1972. Consequently, the possession was taken and delivered in favour of respondent No.5 to construct the houses for police personnel and constructed the houses in accordance with the sanction plan and as such, the plaintiffs have

¶53

¶54

no right or title insofar as suit schedule property is concerned.

¶55

The trial Court based on the pleadings has

¶56

formulated the issues for its consideration as follows;

¶57

O.S.No.26/1995

¶58

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

¶59

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property?

¶60

Whether the plaintiff proves the interference by the defendants?

¶61

Whether the defendants prove that the suit schedule property was acquired under the provision of land acquisition act and possession was taken by them?

¶62

What order and decree?

¶63

¶64

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

¶65

Whether the plaintiff proves the trespass by the defendants as alleged?

¶66

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession as claimed?

¶67

Whether the suit claim for possession is barred by limitation?

¶68

O.S.No.10/1996

¶69

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

¶70

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property?

¶71

Whether the plaintiff proves the interference by the defendants?

¶72

Whether the defendants prove that the suit schedule property was acquired under the provision of land acquisition act and possession was taken by them?

¶73

¶74

5. What order and decree?

¶75

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

¶76

Whether the plaintiff proves the trespass by the defendants as alleged?

¶77

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession as claimed?

¶78

Whether the suit claim for possession is barred by limitation?

¶79

The plaintiff in O.S.No.26/1995 was examined as P.W.1 and produced eight documents and same were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by the defendants.

¶80

The trial Court, after considering the materials on record, by its judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 dismissed both the suits and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.2/2013 and R.A.No.3/2013 before the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after considering the materials on

¶81

¶82

record, by its judgment and decree dated 04.04.2013 dismissed the appeal and as such, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 passed in O.S.No.26/1995 and O.S.No.10/1996 on the file of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs have preferred these appeals.

¶83

I have heard Sri.V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs/appellants and learned HCGP for respondents - State.

¶84

Sri.V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that the suit schedule property was notified in the preliminary notification for acquisition of land measuring 2 acres 30 guntas. However, the Government had acquired 1 acre 34 guntas leaving behind 36 guntas in favour of owners in possession of the land and the suit schedule property i.e., site Nos.15 and 16 come within the perimeters of 36 guntas of land left out by the Government and though

¶85

¶86

the same has been proved by the sketch produced by the Commissioner before the trial Court, the same has not been properly appreciated by both Courts below, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the plaintiffs. He further contended that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the Commissioner's Report and the memo of instructions filed, and as such, the same has caused material irregularity in both the suits and accordingly, he submitted that the interference is required insofar as impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below.

¶87

Per contra , learned HCGP appearing for Government contended that both Courts below have concurrently held against the plaintiffs and he further contended that vendors of the plaintiffs has filed W.P.Nos.13186-13187/1997 before this Court, challenging the acquisition proceedings and this Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the vendors of the plaintiffs by order dated 28.01.1985 and therefore, both Courts below, taking into consideration of dismissal of

¶88

¶89

the writ petitions filed by the vendors of the plaintiffs, arrived at a conclusion that the defendants have acquired entire land comprising 2 acres 30 guntas. Therefore, he submitted that no inference is required in these appeals.

¶90

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the materials on record. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have purchased suit schedule property from one Marigowda on 20.08.1972 and he purchased from his previous owner by name Karigowda. On perusal of the records, the same would clearly indicate that defendants have issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act i.e., Preliminary Notification to acquire the suit schedule property to an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.11 of Mangalawarpet. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the Government has taken possession insofar as 1 acre 34 guntas and remaining 36 guntas of land was left out by the defendants. Therefore, the sites belonging to the plaintiffs are situated in the

¶91

¶92

remaining 36 guntas of land left out by the Government. Perusal of records would clearly indicate that the vendors of the plaintiffs i.e., Marigowda has filed W.P.Nos.13186-13187/1997 and the same came to be dismissed. I have also noticed from the records that Ex.P8 i.e., W.P.Nos.15187 to 15191/1986 has been filed by the similarly placed persons before this Court seeking relief against the defendants not to take any action against the petitioners therein in respect of their sites situated in Sy. No.11 of Mangalawarpet, Channapatna Town. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs herein are also claiming that their sites are situated in Sy.No.11 and this Court by order dated 21.02.1991 dismissed the writ petitions and directed the parties to approach the Competent Forum for redressal of their grievance. I have carefully considered the findings recorded by the trial Court, wherein P.W.1, in his cross-examination, deposed that he has not seen the documents pertaining to conversion of sites in the land bearing Sy. No.11 and he has also admitted that the sites were purchased by the plaintiffs in Sy. No.11 and in the said survey number,

¶93

¶94

12 houses are already constructed by the defendants. Further, he admitted that defendants have constructed police quarters over both properties and the plaintiffs are not in possession of the said sites. I have also considered the prayer made in the suit seeking possession also and it is made clear that suit schedule property has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of police quarters in Sy. No.11 as claimed by the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the trial Court is just and proper.

¶95

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Commissioner Report has not been considered by both Courts below, I have carefully considered the sketch and the report filed by the Commissioner comprising of certain documents which would clearly establish the fact that in Sy. No.11, the entire land has been acquired and the allotment has been made for formation of sites for A.K.Colony and police quarters and private houses also have been put up by the respective landlords and there

¶96

¶97

is no boundary insofar as suit schedule property is concerned as alleged in the plaint as per the Report made available by the Tahasildar, Channapatna Taluk dated 17.07.1988. In that view of the matter, submission of learned counsel appearing for appellant that the Commissioner Report has not been properly appreciated by both Courts below cannot be accepted. Perusal of the records made available by the Tahsildar and the Land Acquisition Officer before the trial Court, would clearly establish the fact that suit schedule properties have been acquired by the Government in the year 1972 and in that view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire materials on record, had come to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties have been acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Police Quarters and for formation of sites for A.K.Colony. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit to

¶98

¶99

interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by both Courts below.

¶100

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed confirming

¶101

the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below.

¶102

As the appellants have not made out case any ground for framing of any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC., the appeal stands dismissed at the stage of Admission itself.

¶103

Sd/JUDGE

¶104

NBM

Raju v. the State of Karnataka by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. the State of Karnataka by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rudramma Vs Smt. Kanthamani

Sri. Hebbali Vs Sri. Chikkaberaiah

Kum. N. Bhamamani Vs Sri. K.N. Gopalan

Sri Karigowda Vs Sri Munisonnappa

Sri M Munivenkata Reddy Vs Shakuntalamma

S L Gopalakrishna Vs K S Parameshwara Gowda