Dismissed

Sri T Ramanjani v. Sri M P Pradeep Kumar

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024RFA/1646/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs appealed against dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction over land they claimed was not acquired. Relying on a Division Bench order stating the land was not acquired, the High Court held dismissal on acquisition grounds untenable but held the suit against the defendant allottee alone not maintainable, dismissing the appeal with liberty to implead him in a pending suit.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with liberty to appellants to implead the respondent-defendant in pending O.S.No.8334/2019 where the Society is a party and obtain necessary orders therein.

Sri T Ramanjani Vs Sri M P Pradeep Kumar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39292 RFA No. 1646 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1646 OF 2015 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI T RAMANJANI S/O LATE THAMMANNA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS

¶9

SMT UMA W/O LATE T RAMANJANI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶10

SMT R ASHA D/O LATE T RAMANJANI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶11

SMT K R DEEPA D/O LATE T RAMANJANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, GPA HOLDER

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

OF APPELLANT 1(A) SMT UMA

¶14

R SOWMYA D/O LATE T RAMANJANAI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶15

ALL ARE RESIDENTS AT No.629, KODIGEHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE-560 092

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI AMARESH A ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI M P PRADEEP KUMAR S/O LATE M PUTTAPPA

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39292 RFA No. 1646 of 2015

¶21

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.93, 2^ND MAIN, 4^TH CROSS GANGA NAGAR LAYOUT BANGALORE-560032

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(RESPONDENT SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION)

¶24

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3762/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Heard Sri Amaresh A Angadi, learned counsel for the appellants.

¶28

Appellants are the unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3762/2012, on the file of XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in this appeal.

¶29

The Trial Court on contest dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Same is called in question in this appeal.

¶30

Learned Trial Judge in paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment has held as under:

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:39292 RFA No. 1646 of 2015

¶33

“12. In the cross examination plaintiff has stated that he is a retired Kirloskar employee. He has further stated that his land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas was acquired by the Government in the year 1985-86. Thereafter he states that after acquisition, the said land was taken by NTIH Cooperative Society. Thereafter he denies that the Society has formed layout by forming roads and drainage. He has also denied that there is full fledged layout formed by the Society in Sy.No.13/1 and it called as Rajiv Gandhi Nagar and defendant has taken possession certificate from the Society. He has admitted that the Writ Petition filed by him in W.P.No.2976 to 2980/2011 is dismissed on 6/3/2013. The said document is marked as Ex.D9. In the further cross examination held on 26/3/2014 P.W.1 states that he does not know whether final notification was published on 22/9/1986. He also admits that himself and his brother challenged the acquisition proceedings in W.P. No. 34408/1994 and he has denied that he has withdrawn those Writs after laps of 3 years.”

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants have placed on record the memo along with certified copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4036/2013 (LARES), dated 11^th March, 2019.

¶35

The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:39292 RFA No. 1646 of 2015

¶38

“4. Learned Additional Government advocate Sri.S.S.Mahendra, on instructions from Sri.Ravi, Tahsildar, who is present before the Court makes a categorical statement that the petitioner’s land in question i.e., Sy.No.13/1, measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situated at Kodigehalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk is not acquired and is not the subject matter of the impugned notifications. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 also submits that the lands in question are not acquired for the benefit of 5^th respondent-Society. We have no reasons to disbelieve such statements of fact. If the lands of the petitioner are not acquired as stated by respondents, then the petitioner can have no grievance.”

¶39

Therefore, the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit land is an acquired land cannot be countenanced in law. It is also noticed that the society which is a fifth respondent in writ appeal is not a party to the present suit.

¶40

Defendant claims to be the allottee from the fifth respondent Society in W.A.No.4036/2013. Therefore, the suit against the defendant alone is not maintainable.

¶41

Be it what it may. Sri Amaresh A Angadi, learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have already

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:39292 RFA No. 1646 of 2015

¶44

filed a suit in O.S.No.8334/2019, which is now pending before the Civil Court where the Society is a party.

¶45

In the light of the order passed in writ appeal as referred to supra, the plaintiffs are at liberty to implead the present respondent – defendant in the said suit and obtain necessary orders in the pending suit.

¶46

With that observation, appeal stands dismissed.

¶47

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Sri T Ramanjani v. Sri M P Pradeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Ramanjani v. Sri M P Pradeep Kumar

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

R Rekha Vs Jayaramaiah

Sri. Ramu Vs Smt. Zeenathunnisa

Vimala Manne Vs Sarojamma

Smt. Devamma Vs Swamy

Mr Mohamed Inayathulla Vs Mr Nazeer Pasha

Sri P Shankarappa Vs Sri Dayananda