Allowed

D T Prakash v. Lingaraju

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024CRP/234/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the Trial Court's rejection of an application to reject the plaint. The High Court observed that since the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and vested in the government, the original owner had no right to file a suit for injunction or declaration of title. Consequently, the Trial Court was directed to allow the rejection application and rejec

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; defendant's application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC allowed; plaint rejected.

D T Prakash Vs Lingaraju — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:34140 CRP No. 234 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 234 OF 2023 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

D T PRAKASH S/O LATE D. TIRUMALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O NO 2906/1, GOKULAM ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSORE 570 010.

¶8

BUT WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE PLAINT AS R/AT 345, INDIRANAGAR, NAZARBAD, MYSORE.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S P SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAMATA G KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

LINGARAJU S/O SRI LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O SY NO 25/1, SATHAGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK NOW RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK 570 019.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2023 PASSED IN OS No.2478/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:34140 CRP No. 234 of 2023

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner challenges the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 2478/2010 by which the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC came to be rejected.

¶23

The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.576/2010 (renumbered as O.S.2478/2010) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property and also mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the building materials or other materials kept in the schedule property. The defendant entered appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC stating that the plaintiff has categorically admitted that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.25/1 measuring 4 acres 13 guntas out of which he claims right in respect of 10 guntas has been acquired for the benefit of the petitioner/Society under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, the suit is barred by law.

¶24

3 The Trial Court after considering the application and also the objections filed to the said application passed the impugned order.

¶25

Sri. S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner's counsel submits that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.25/1 including 10 guntas of which the petitioner claims has been acquired under the provisions of the Act 1894 and the possession having been vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances, the present petition is not maintainable. He further submits that on earlier

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:34140 CRP No. 234 of 2023

¶28

occasion the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.321/2004 on the same cause of action and the plaintiff withdrew the suit stating that the dispute is settled between the parties. In the present petition the petitioner has not shown any fresh cause of action to file the suit. Therefore, in the absence of cause of action, the suit is barred as stated under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC. In support reliance is placed on the following decisions:

¶29

a. Vallabh Das Vs. Madanlal and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 987.

¶30

b. T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and another reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421.

¶31

c. Papinayakanahalli Venkanna and others Vs. Janadri Venkanna Setty reported in AIR 1985 Kar 166.

¶32

d. State of Bihar Bs. Dhirendra Kumar and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1955.

¶33

e. S.P. Subramanya Shetty and others Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 2076.

¶34

f. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. K.S.Narayan reported in (2006) 8 SCC 336.

¶35

g. Ram Kanya Bai and Anr. Vs. Jagdish and Ors reported in AIR 2011 AC 3258.

¶36

h. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and another reported in (2013) 3 SCC 66.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:34140 CRP No. 234 of 2023

¶39

i. Jayamma and others Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Hassn District, Hassan and others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 554.

¶40

j. Mutha Associates and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 304.

¶41

k. Surjit Singh and others Vs. Gurwant Kaur and others reported in (2012) SCC 665.

¶42

l. Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) Thr Lrs and ors reported in AIR 2020 SC 3310.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff was permitted to retire from the case on 20.08.2024. The respondent/plaintiff has not chosen to appear in person or through his counsel and placed ex-parte.

¶44

After carefully examining submissions of the learned senior counsels representing the petitioner/defendant and upon perusal of the material key points for determination is whether the petitioner/defendant had made out the case to reject the plaint as stated under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

¶45

The plaintiff has categorically admitted that the land bearing Sy.No.25/1 originally belonged to Nanjappa and the same was acquired by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru sub-division, Mysuru and handed over in favour of petitioner/Housing Society. The Plaintiff claims to be owner by virtue of a unregistered sale deed dated 05.05.1982 for a sum of Rs.23,000/- and he claims to be in possession to an extent of 10 guntas under the said unregistered sale deed. The petitioner has further admitted that the entire extent of Sy.No.25/1 belonging to Nanjappa was acquired for the benefit of petitioner/Society under the provisions of Act 1894.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:34140 CRP No. 234 of 2023

¶48

A perusal of the documents pertaining to the acquisition indicated that award was passed to the entire extent of land and the possession was taken and notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1894 was issued to the original owner Nanjappa and the entire extent of land is vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances.

¶49

Once land has been acquired and vested in the government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, any subsequent suit seeking declaration of title or injunction concerning the same land is generally not maintainable. This is because, upon acquisition, the ownership and possession of the land vests irrevocably with the government, free from all encumbrances. The rights of the original landowner or any claimant are extinguished once the acquisition process is complete, including the issuance of notices, payment of compensation, and final vesting of the land.

¶50

Upon the issuance of a final acquisition notice, the landowner’s title extinguishes, and the government becomes the absolute owner. Post-acquisition, civil courts lack the jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging the government’s ownership or seeking reliefs like injunctions against governmental authorities or third parties acting on the government’s behalf.

¶51

In the case of Vallabh Das v. Madanlal (AIR 1970 SC 987), the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of withdrawal and abandonment of part of claim under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 and held that mere identity of some of the issues in the two suits do not bring about an identity of the subject-matter in the two suits. Therefore, it concluded that unless the cause of action and relief claimed in the second suit are the same as in the first suit, it could not be said that the subject matter of the second suit is the same as in the first suit.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:34140 CRP No. 234 of 2023

¶54

In the case of T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satypal and Anr., (AIR 1977 SC 2421) , the Apex Court held that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, meritless, groundless, and does not disclose a clear right to sue, the Courts must reject the plaint forthwith after giving an immediate hearing to the parties.

¶55

In the case of State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar (AIR 1995 SC 1955) , the Apex court reiterated that after the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, any dispute concerning the title or possession cannot be entertained by civil courts. The Act provides a comprehensive scheme for the resolution of disputes relating to compensation, and once the land vests in the government, all rights, title, and interests of the previous owners are extinguished.

¶56

In the case of S.P. Subramanya Shetty v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (AIR 1997 SC 2076) , the Supreme Court held that once the acquisition process is complete and the land is vested in the State, it is no longer open to the original owner to claim any right, title, or interest in the said property. Any suit for declaration of title or injunction in respect of such land is not maintainable.

¶57

In the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority v. K.S. Narayan [(2006) 8 SCC 336] , the Apex court held that once the land is acquired and the award is passed, the land vests in the State, and any subsequent suit for possession on the grounds of non-service of notice under Section 17(5) of the BDA Act, 1976 is not maintainable. Where the landowners lay a challenge to the validity of the acquisition proceedings itself, the controversy may be adjudged only by a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶58

In the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Anr. v. Brijesh Reddy and Anr [(2013) 3 SCC 66] , the

¶59

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34140 CRP No. 234 of 2023

¶60

Apex Court observed that a suit for declaration or bare injunction against the land acquisition authority without laying challenge to the acquisition proceedings, on the ground of invalidity of procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act was not maintainable, and that the appropriate remedy was to approach a High Court under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 136, with self imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power.

¶61

In the case of Jayamma and Others v. Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District [(2013) 7 SCC 554] , a dispute originated due to the lapse of acquisition proceedings since no award was passed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition, 1894, after issuance of declaration under Section 6, the Apex Court opined that where the State had not taken possession of the proposed lands and the acquisition proceedings had lapsed, there arose not a need for issuance of a notification on withdrawal, and held that Courts cannot compel the acquisition authority to pass awards in respect of acquisition proceedings that have lapsed.

¶62

Furthermore, it held the Act of 1894 is a complete code by itself and that Courts cannot interfere in those decisions of the Government and the subordinate authority (Land Acquisition Collector) that are in consonance with the statutory framework.

¶63

In the case of Mutha Associates and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors . [(2013) 14 SCC 304] , the Apex Court held that an aggrieved party instead of filing objections to award passed by the Collector, in opposition to the proposed land acquisition, could not upon the issuance of a notice for taking over of possession file a civil suit challenging the same. It further held that where the suit was withdrawn after the expiry of six years, to challenge the acquisition in a writ petition,

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:34140 CRP No. 234 of 2023

¶66

the same would be hit by delay and laches, and that it would be fully justified for the High Court to refuse to interfere with the same.

¶67

In the view of the legal principles established by the Apex Court, once land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the acquisition process has been completed (including vesting of the land with the government), the original landowner or any claimant has no legal right to file a suit for declaration of title or injunction. The land is considered vested in the government free from all encumbrances, and any subsequent suit would be barred.

¶68

Thus, the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside, and the plaint ought to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

¶69

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i. Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶72

ii. The order dated 24.01.2023 passed by IX Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Mysuru in O.S.No.2478/2010 is hereby set aside and the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC is hereby allowed and consequently the plaint stands rejected.

¶73

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶74

RKA

D T Prakash v. Lingaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D T Prakash v. Lingaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Deepak Raj Vs Axis Bank Ltd.

Manjunath M R, Vs the Manager

M/S Shri Veerabhadreshwar Agency Inamdyamanakoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Basarur Mohiddin Saheb Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

Sri Mahendra Kumar Vs Sri L Ravindra

Smt Susheeladevi Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer