Dismissed

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation v. Sri. G Prem Kumar

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023RFA/99/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third party appeal filed by BMRCL against a trial court decree restoring possession of schedule B property to the plaintiff. The High Court dismissed the appeal as the decree became final since the benefitting authorities did not challenge it and the decree has been fully satisfied by the plaintiff obtaining possession.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; liberty reserved for other remedies against the judgment debtor.

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Vs Sri. G Prem Kumar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:41024 RFA No. 99 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.99 OF 2018 (DEC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION BMTC COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, K H ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BANGALORE-57 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (LAND ACQUISITION & ESTATES)

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. VENKATESH P DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

SRI. G PREM KUMAR S/O LATE S M GOVINDARAJU AGE 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS ADD: NO.14, 3^RD FLOOR, 6^TH CROSS, KILARI ROAD BANGALORE-53.

¶11

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, RASTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING NRUPATUNA ROAD, BENGALURU-1 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶13

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.3/2, 3^RD FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS KHENI BUILDING, GANDHI NAGAR BANGALORE-9

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.G.S.VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:41024 RFA No. 99 of 2018

¶18

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.8336/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal by the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation (for short “BMRCL”) is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.10.2017 passed in O.S.No.8336/2013 by the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, whereby the Trial Court decreed the suit for declaration holding that the appellant – BMRCL, responded No.2 – Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short “KIADB”) and respondent No.3 – Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB (for short “SLAO”) did not have right to take possession of the suit “B” schedule property from respondent No.1 – plaintiff and for consequential possession directing the appellant, respondent No.2 – KIADB and respondent No.3 – SLAO to hand over possession of the suit schedule property to respondent No.1 – plaintiff. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court upheld the claim of respondent No.1 – plaintiff and decreed the suit in his favour, aggrieved by which, the

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:41024 RFA No. 99 of 2018

¶24

appellant – BMRCL is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶25

In this context, it is relevant to state that the respondent No.2 – KIADB and respondent No.3 – SLAO for whose benefit the suit “B” schedule property was acquired has not challenged the impugned judgment and decree and the same has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon respondent No.2 – KIADB and respondent No.3 – SLAO.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶27

The material on record discloses that respondent No.1 – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit interalia contending that he was the owner of suit “A” schedule property and that suit “B” schedule property is portion of suit “A” schedule property. It was contended that respondent No.3 acquired a portion of the suit “A” schedule property except the suit “B” schedule property for the benefit of respondent No.2 – KIADB and for the purpose of the appellant – BMRCL. It was also contended that despite not acquiring the suit “B” schedule property by following due process of law and by not taking recourse to acquisition proceedings,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:41024 RFA No. 99 of 2018

¶30

respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the appellant – BMRCL illegally and high-handedly dispossessed respondent No.1 – plaintiff from the suit “B” schedule property and also did not pay any compensation in this regard.

¶31

It was contended that the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the appellant – BMRCL in dispossessing the respondent No.1 – plaintiff from the suit “B” schedule property without following due process of law and without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings was violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, the said action was liable to be declared as illegal and the possession of suit “B” schedule property be restored to respondent No.1.

¶32

The appellant – defendant No.1 and respondent No.3 filed their written statements and contested the suit, pursuant to which the following issues were framed by the Trial Court.

¶33

“ 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants had no right to take possession of the suit schedule “B” property unless otherwise by due process of law and have illegally taken possession of the same in excess of land under the guise of acquisition as alleged?

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:41024 RFA No. 99 of 2018

¶36

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants have failed to deliver the possession of the suit schedule “B” property in his favour?

¶37

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?

¶38

4. What order or decree?”

¶39

The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to

¶40

Ex.P.20 were marked on his behalf. It is seen that neither the appellant nor respondent Nos.2 and 3 cross-examined respondent No.1 – plaintiff (P.W.1) and also did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

¶41

Under there circumstances, the Trial Court placed reliance upon the unimpeached, unchallenged and uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence adduced by respondent No.1 and proceeded to decree the suit in his favour. The Trial Court also relied upon the report of the Court Commissioner to come to the conclusion that respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well as appellant had illegally and high-handedly taken over suit ‘B’ schedule property from respondent No.1 – plaintiff without following due process of law and without resorting to acquisition proceedings and

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:41024 RFA No. 99 of 2018

¶44

consequently, they were liable to restore possession of the suit ‘B’ schedule property to the respondent No.1 – plaintiff.

¶45

After having heard learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arise for consideration in the present appeal is “Whether the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.1 – plaintiff against the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 .”

¶46

As stated supra, the evidence adduced on behalf of respondent No.1 – plaintiff had not been discredited or impeached in the cross-examination by the appellant or respondent Nos.2 and 3, who had also not adduced any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. In addition thereto, the Trial Court appointed a Court Commissioner, who conducted local inspection and submitted a report demarcating the suit “B” schedule property and stating that the suit schedule property was not subject matter of the acquisition proceedings. Further, it is needless to state that the appellant - BMRCL claims through and under respondent No.2 – KIADB and respondent No.3 – SLAO who have not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and decree. Under these undisputed facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:41024 RFA No. 99 of 2018

¶49

decree having become final, binding and conclusive insofar as respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. KIADB and SLAO are concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court in the present appeal filed by the Appellant – BMRCL who undisputedly claim through and under respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶50

A perusal of the material on record will also indicate that pursuant to the impugned judgment and decree, the respondent No.1 – plaintiff has taken actual and physical possession of the suit “B” schedule property by executing decree in Ex.No.3548/2017 on 27.04.2019 and the decree passed by the Trial Court which has not been challenged by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. KIADB and SLAO has also been fully satisfied. Viewed from this angle also, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal.

¶51

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merits in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:41024 RFA No. 99 of 2018

¶54

Liberty is however reserved in favour of the appellant –

¶55

BMRCL to take recourse to such other remedies as available in law against respondent No.1 – plaintiff in relation to the suit schedule property in accordance with law.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation v. Sri. G Prem Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation v. Sri. G Prem Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sreerama Vs Sri R Narayanappa

Smt. Ranjitha Vs Sreekanth

Jayanth Govind Singh Vs Karnataka Secondary Education

N. Chandrashekar Vs S. Dharnesh

Ravichandran R Vs Chitralekha

Mr Mohammed Haneef @ Illyaz Vs Sri G M Malik