Allowed

Commissioner v. D R Suryanarayana

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024RFA/38/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA appealed an ex parte decree granting the plaintiff permanent injunction over a Kathriguppa site. Additional documents showed the land was notified in 1977 for Banashankari third stage formation, suggesting no saleable interest in the vendor. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree on payment of cost, and remanded the suit for fresh disposal with opportunity to file a written stateme

What the court decided

AI extract

Commissioner Vs D R Suryanarayana — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33222 RFA No. 38 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶4

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.38 OF 2015 (INJ)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE -560 020.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SMT. SASAIAH SARITHA JAGANNATH, FOR SRI VEDA MURTHY.M.V, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

D R SURYANARAYANA S/O RAJAGOPALA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEW NO.2-17/4, KATHRIGUPPA, PAPAIAH GARDEN, BANGALORE-560085.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI LOURDU MARIYAPPA A, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3247/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:33222 RFA No. 38 of 2015

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard Smt. Sasaiah Saritha Jagannath, appearing on behalf of Sri Veda Murthy M.V., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Lourdu Mariyappa, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶20

Appeal is filed by the BDA, challenging the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.3247/2010, dated 07.12.2011, on the file of XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

¶21

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

¶22

Plaintiff claim that he is the owner of the property which is a site bearing old No.9, new BBMP No.2 (old No.17/4) at 3^rd main road, Kathriguppa, having PID No.56-93-02 (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’).

¶23

Plaintiff contended that without there being any right, title or interest, officials of Bengaluru Development Authority (for short ‘BDA’), started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, suit was necessitated.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:33222 RFA No. 38 of 2015

¶26

In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant appeared before the Trial Court, but failed to contest the matter by filing the written statement.

¶27

Thereafter, learned Trial Judge recorded the evidence of the plaintiff and placing the reliance on the documents that were produced before the Court which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8, comprising of sale deed dated 26.02.1990, khatha extract, tax paid receipt, sanction plan, electric demand bills, legal notice to BDA dated 06.04.2010 and postal acknowledgement, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the same, BDA is in appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Sasaiah Saritha Jagannath, appearing on behalf of Sri Veda Murthy, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that the entire area was acquired for the purpose of formation of Banashankari third stage. Therefore, the sale

¶30

deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by the erstwhile owner had no saleable interest in respect of the revenue site. As

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:33222 RFA No. 38 of 2015

¶33

such, decreeing of the suit by the Trial Court is improper and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶34

Along with the appeal, appellant has also filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, prima-facie to establish the fact that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of formation of Banashankari third stage and request the Court to permit the BDA to frame the same by remitting the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶35

Per contra, Sri Lourdu Mariyappa, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposes the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum as well as the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by BDA and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶37

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff is claiming the title over the suit property by virtue of the sale deed marked at Ex.P.1 dated 26.02.1990. Whereas the additional document that has been now placed on record along with the application under Order 41

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:33222 RFA No. 38 of 2015

¶40

rule 27 CPC would go to show that the land in question was notified for the purpose of acquiring for formation of Banashankari third stage and the date of preliminary notification is 14.02.1977. Thereafter final notification has also been passed. Therefore, there is no saleable interest in the erstwhile owner to convey the property in favour of the plaintiff.

¶41

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, it is crystal clear that the land in question at an undisputed point of time was notified for the purpose of formation of Banashankari third stage. Therefore, an opportunity needs to be provided to BDA for establishing that the property in question was also acquired. Needless to emphasize that if such an attempt is made by the BDA, the plaintiff will have the right to crossexamine the BDA.

¶42

It is also noted that no written statement is filed by the BDA in original suit. Under such circumstances, affording an opportunity for the BDA to file the written statement and then proceed with the case needs to be provided on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:33222 RFA No. 38 of 2015

¶45

Accordingly, following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) Regular First Appeal is allowed.

¶48

(ii) Impugned judgment and decree is set aside on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by BDA to the plaintiff.

¶49

(iii) Matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶50

(iv) Taking note of the fact that the suit is of the year 2010, learned Trial Judge shall permit the defendant to file the written statement on the next date of hearing and thereafter allow the parties to lead further evidence, if any, and then conclude the suit on or before 31^st March, 2025.

¶51

(v) Payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- is condition precedent for BDA to participate in further proceedings before the Trial Court.

¶52

(vi) Parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the suit.

¶53

(vii) Parties shall appear before the Trial Court without further notice on 2^nd September 2024.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶56

MR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Commissioner v. D R Suryanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Commissioner v. D R Suryanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Sadiq Ahamed Vs Amthul Basheer

N. Bhupalraj Vs Sri. Vikram Basha Khan

Sri Chikkeeregowda Vs Sri Doddeeregowda

M/S Punjab Handlooms Vs Rai Bahadur Arcot Narrian Swamy

Mr N Sunder Vs Mr P v Mohan

Sri. T. D. Basappa Vs Smt. B.B. Leela @ Leelavathi