RFA 2264/ 2006
1
IN THFEZ HIG H COURT OF' KA.R.NA'I'A.K.A AT BANGALORE
DA'I.'I?,D '1"?--HS 'I'E""iE 20"" DAY OF AUGUST. 2010
IEBEZFO RE)
*1':---133; 1»--ioN'i'3Li«: MR.JUS'3'ICI£ B.s.PA'I'11._ f A'
R.F.A.No.2264/2006
BETWEEN :
Sri ZAHIR A}--IIVEIZIJ 1\/IECCAL
S/0 late Nazeer Meccai.
Aged about 83 years.
Residing at No.24,
Kadi1'e1'1.aha11i Villzige,
U1.taraha.lli Hobli. _ ._ {j V 'A _
Bangalore South 'I'a11L1k. A :f'sPPELLANT
(By Sri S.Rai}.a1SficI:{é11:;'};;55d\.:_.._i;G:7_:V' 0
M/ B1a,cI{ CO2}{.<s»vLaw;f'ir_i}i',«..Advs.)
AND: V
The Ba11g.a101'€ 0'Dc_\?t':1Qf:n1évz1i0Oiiuthority.
__Se}11key_§_R021d, KL11'i.m_1ja Park 'West.
A" Bemga.l._<i1'e2:560. Q20, """
._qRe,pi*::_sent'ue.d&.i).y its Commissioner. RESPONDENT
[Si 1′. , Adv.)
=%=*=§=
.0 _T’11is=RE2g.:{i1i211- E'<'irsi:. Apperz-11 is filed under Sc<*£.ior2 96 of CPC
.0 aig_.$x.gA1ivn§i0"A_'t}1e _judgmer1i'. and de(:1'ee dated 1.7.2005 passed in
__"O.S0'.21.89/I989 on the file of the 3 Add].CiI':y Civil and S€Ssi0ns
~_ I:322u'1gz1l01'e 2-1.1'1d etc.
RFA 2264 / 2006
2
This 21m)(:e’~11 coining on for Orders this day. the Court’
niacie the following:
j I UDGMENT
1.. This appeal} is fi1c’~:d C1121i1.e11g,ir1g the jL£dg1’I1(*.I’1I”£11Tid…dC€1l'{‘,éj”
dated 01.07.2005 passed in O.S.N0.2’1’89–;’,1989.
agg1’ie\xeci by the d1’smissa1 of his s11it.a’fi1e”:1 zS63€31{>i.3{?.g. ‘pei1I1i’a.;fii?1ii.’._
i’nju1’1Ci’1’0n E’Lg’c’1i1’1S1′ ciefend211″1’L–1*es;.:–Qiidc11i. V’
2. For me sake of c:0n\{9;i:1.ie11(éc?.”i’1I(:._:p21i*’i:i._es wi1.1bt’- referred in
by the mnks assigned to t.he’rV11;_i’n f1″1’ia11″Ci.:.1.1i'”£.
3. ‘1’1’1&§’i(‘f’2:1’é;1V(?”aiif1’I’ir3 fi§iéii1i’i’i.1ii;’i.s t1’1i.i’Vi”hVL: is the elbsoiute owner of
plainii SC)h:éf§L1}€:3 :’C’,7′{1i?111. of one acre Comprised in
Sy. No.24 Ui,t.a1.’ahaI1i Hobli, Bangalore
V Thfl>¥:'(1fE1}~-~€XE.(?I11 of {he Iand rnc~tas’:.1re$ 1.9 acres 34
claims In have }3L1{‘Ch’c1S6d an extent 01′ 5
gi1r’1’11:”.i’§b’y dz-iieci 16.10.1974 and a1.’1()1}f1er exieni. of 5
g;i.1;’1t21s” by:’W.\vé1),’ of ‘c1I1(I)1I’1E3I’ sale Cleed defied 16.10.1984.
(.::(;1~J”1A1C’.:1iI’C1’E11g that he had put up dweiiiiig house in the said
‘-}fii.3′()}.’1e1’i}.r by 0bi.21i1’1i1’1g perm1’ssi(.m £’1*0m the villagc ]3E11’1(.’.hE-lyéllh
“~211’i(‘i” E’.I’i’c’:z1:. the ciefenclaiiiwi:3anga1(‘)re D€:’\'(;’.10pI11€1’1E. ALi1h01’i1.y was
cii1:’2g to E.i’espz~.1ss in the suit pinperty and was t:1’yi1’1g {.0
RFA 2264/20{}6
demolish the existing: stn.ict’.Lire. he approached the Court.
seeking a decrree for §3@I’I11’c1I’If31’1i. injui1e1.i0n.
‘4~
4. I)f3f€11dE1Ili. 1″esist.ed the stiii. by filing writ.ter1 sji’fat,eI}ie:i:i’tj;
ctomenciecl that Sy. No.24 had been i1€)»tit’ted
Authority for an improvement. scherneifor1’f0ri’hati01*t oi’
outer ring road start:ii1g from ‘h_i.’g;h. t’,i*e1iisI1’1issiO:j1 ‘i;::{)W.£:’,1f -hear 2 L
Kanaliaptlm road and ‘i<3i11i1ig_____V'3»6 'cross ioetd in
Bemashankari 2"" Stage and .33Qs£1keji'ehai_ii~itO'Ba11gai0re~1\/Iys0i*e
Road. It. was ecmiended i11?1{"§..h€~pVl"€'AIiIT1i'11§;1'yz'1fi.O{ificatiofl in this
i'egz,11'd was issi._ie–;i _i.8,0'3. i976_4whiehVviféis published in the
If<tE1.].IriElE{Ci,§'{t:.,~:E Ga2:etti:-,_..ciatfed -I6:~O3.i9–89. They I"urt'her C()1";1,E?I'1dGd
that notice V' or the' -.i;prOf;re_)_'s'e«v:'1" acquisition was given as
C0nt"e1i1p!at.ed Se(ét.i.'0i1'"i7[5] of the BDA Act to the notified
I<'m.1th'edé1i's'*. aaiiyci <)'ie1'1e"1'-""'ini.e1-ested persons in the iand in
c'1'u._eé«;Viso'ii;A itswzisa.et;;'it.en(iecl that the }E3}'.})A was taking acition to
21(:quii7__e the Ea–i:'i'<:i and the 2.1eqr.,iisit':i0ri proceedings were in
;:);tg)gi-ess."v 'I.'he ;:)121int.iI't'. it was urged. not being one of the
1{h"2it.'heޤ';'1rs in respect. oi' the land in qL1est'.i<3n. held no right, to
liisie the suit.
3 On the basis of the ri.\-tat C0nt,enti0I1s, the Trial Court
“aimed necessary issues as regards the proof of iawfui
RFA 226-13 /2006
4
ossession of the .)Eaint.ii’.f over {he suit schedule )1’O)(3FiV and
P I l I ,
his eni.i1,}emen1 for Jeniizment. ii’1’u1’1o1,ior: as souirhi. The
.3 .
)l21i.nt.iff examined himself as PW~l and reduced and marked
E
EXS.P~l to £1.14. No evidence was lei. in on behzzzli.o’r?,_i’Eove
Clefendant”.
6. The learned Trial Judge has h€l_(,’1~1l’.1E.§t tl_1lef’ailed_V
to establish his possession and was t:he1’e1’oi”Ve i*.1ot”*ent.iiulen(f}..&lkotf
the decree of permanent injunetiori–~._and éiveeordir1gly{.dis.rnissed 2 L
the suit. Aggrieved by the sz-rriie. tlfl§’:VVV1.’5»!f’t’£3’€3_’I]l is filed.
7. Counsel for the appellarfii. court below
has totally.I’nisdivre’Cied._itse’l’i7._in” joroceeding on the basis of the
ri1isubsi.ar1tialiedildvefexieéeeizilgeii by the defendant. regarding; the
fc.1CC{L1iS.i*..§3:01″1’A()l’ ihellp-:7ope1″i:y. His contention. is that the eritire
‘exient.. of 1.._he.}e.r1tl,measured 19 acres 34 gunias and out of the
seirlzier 1:-_1_reV§)l%1ivz.i1.iil’s claim related to only an extent of one acre
V «.v11ach.'”I=;r2 “piirL?hasecl way back in the years 1974 <31 1984 by
., xargiyr. elf iwo'"sepai*ate regisl.ere.d sale Based on the sale
_rleeds"'liis name W218 reeorclecl in the khmiha and in the RFC
ex~t:.rae.£s. which were produced before the Trial Court. I-Iowever,
ties}:)it,e the same. the 'E'rial Court. has proceeded to dismiss the
suit. iiled on the g_.-_§rou1'1<;l that" since the land was acquired by the
Ar'
Rm 2264/2006
5
BDA and the iitle ol”1=l’1e plair1iii’i”was; ehallenged by the BDA,
ihe plai1’1i.ii’i” was not e1’1iii.led for the relief.
8. Having regard to the nature of defence lal’§éf’1′ ‘she
defendan1’~BDA and in the lighi of the mi”
8.ddL1CI€Cl any evidence before the Trial Cogjrtj. “COl.’l’1’1S€’f*fO,i”lti¢A’
BDA was directed to secure the_norifi(:atiolns unrier xivhieh’. the
portion of the land in Sy. No.24 ‘;1c.”:gu:l’s’;;ic}ln and
aboui the sul3s6C1ueni dr;l”®1§JI)11fi’eil1l«ll” ihe said
acquisition. Mr. Puiie appearing for
the BDA has sceclaeicl that though the
BDA failed to the Trial Court. by
leading Jl”21’et remains that the land in
Sy. No.24 wa}:-.._41io,1ii’ieci for .§1″(_f’qLI§Sili()I1 as per the preliminary
4…i.1oti.i’iLt22_4f.§i:olr1’~v:lai,eel ‘*–].8V.03&.Vl.976 published in the }{arna1t.aka
A’C}a.:>:ei«Le_V Cl§’tlO§i*.4vA.l€\.D3.l989 followed by the final eleelaraiion
in the Karnatalia Gazette on
V l0.08.l”990.V.:. ‘{3r)i.l1 i.l’1e.se 11ot.il”‘1eatio1’1s are placed before the
K V’ W lCo1.1ri,eal()1ig’with a memo.
Itis seen from the final no1.ifieation issued under S€C'{‘.iOI’l
–«..ji9{‘.i”] oi” the BDA Act’ $979. that an extent of 12 gumas of land
1’ised in Sy. No.24 has been aoquiied for the purpose of
RFA 12264/2(){}6
7
but no iiiaiteriais were produced to show that any c(mstruet.i0r1
was put up in the suit property and his bare assertion tlmt: he
was residing in the suit schedule property
believed. ‘I’he1″ef01’e. he was not entitled for ‘the .1e.iief’d (riff V’
perI1’1a11er11 ir1junct;i(m.
1.0. The plairitiff produced E’.\«VO:S£1f€ as
He has also Produced Exs.I-3-5 ‘t’or».V”‘r”:9 wh’in:’.V11*- “INC and
n1ut.ati011 extra(:l.s. The ‘F:”iai Coasfitf ‘1’e;C:01’uC}s_ a fiIidii’1g’V that the
name of the petitioner is erit:ere_d iidi—ihe 1<_3.r&12i'1-*.':f¥_1a npertaining to the
land in quesiioii _ai1d 't'._11al':§:he dad-.;j'i'*'Qd.ticed:'the land revenue
receipts. persuaded itself 1:0 dismiss the
suit'. on tiliedhglsis 0'i'.Vt.I;1',e{'deihriee'Of the BDA that the land was
n0t,ii'ied f:)I" e1Ltcp;iis_tl.icmT'a1id see()i1(;1ly on the ground that in the
re'e–r)rd"'s-.df i..Ai'i;;h–i1;'; pi'0CHi'(fed. 110 dwelling house was found
11iCi1tio_1ié:{1:"'4,_'I'i*ie~Tl'i'i.21l Court is carried away by the fact 11113.1'
si1ie.e't..E_fie pig}i.1'ii:ifi"'f'21i}eci to produce any material to show that. he
put up .é;i'iy cronstructioii 01:1 the kind in question and faikecl
«._t.(*r.eve11 p'r'odL1(:{% any photogrziphs or to take out ctomrnission. for
%inspeet'i0i'1 arid establish the exi.st.e1:1ce of S1I'1ICE.L1I'€ in the
_ he was not emitlecl for grarai. of pe1*1'1ia1'ie1it. iiijunctflioii.
RFA 2254/:2()<}s
8
11.. As atlrezidy iioticed ai:)ove. the approach of the Trio! Court.
totally e1’1′()r1oous. in ihz1i’. the d€f<.'.1"1d'dIH' has not eiitomd the
witness box and has 1101'. prociuced any material to show,'tha1'.
the suit schedule land was acquired. Though in thrsfi "'w_i'_'i-1_i'.é»:;1
S'{Ei'§t?1'1'1t?1'1i. ii' is (éc)11t.endod that. 21 p1'(;'li1}1il'1E}1"y 1'}0E'ii?i:€EiY,_iA()u1I:"Vfi2i§s'-,
published notifying the lalid for E1Cq.1.li$i1iO1'1'H.ii'1;£'C1–._':{}1.C' EiE}id_
p1'eli1'm'na1'y Iiotificafion is siateci lo i'ra\–.ie i:{(§ei"£ pi"ib1ishcdVV1.15"-.(ihbi_:
ga7:e[t".d’u.i€~i;ji’opei”1.y measuring
one acre (iwn-ed \Ai’3.s’vV:i–o’i§.ii’ied for acquisition. in
(“he zxlaseiioo “iii ihis i’ega1’d. there was no
jusLifi<:ai.ion V:9i..1.ions 21Cq1.:i1’i1’ig the Ialici. T116 final I}()'[ifi(.’E:li.i()1′] p1′()c1’L1Ced
_ éi’s;. 1’ei}+:%1*1*ec1 to hereiii eiiiaove. ciisclosos that”. only mi ex1.e1’1i. of 12
of land in -Sy. No.24 z:1€:qi:i1’ed by the fiiial dc(:iara1.io1a
RI-‘A 2264/20()£S
9
published under Section 19(1) of the BDA Acid in the K8l’}’1E1l’c1kE,1
Gazette on 10.08.1990. Tl’1ei’el’ore, it. is clear mat the Trial
Court. has blindly proofiecled to dismiss the suit without lfiiidiiig
0:11 What was the extzeilt. 0!’ land notified for £1{‘.QLiiS_i.l..i.Qi1iii-.’§ll€_
pi’elim1’na1’y noti.I’i.cati(m; whci,l”le1′ the extent. no’i’il:iedfiri’ t,l’1e..l ‘
preliminary nolificziiion was the l2ii’id””a§:q.ui1i;edVl”by’ “i’ii1al”1
11oI’.ii’iCa1.io1’1; and wl’1elh<:r the smii. sc':l1ecVi:,1_lé'–1arid xxrieivss pa,1'~i of lt'l~icl*
land notified for 'c1(.'(}L1iSi{.i0i}. In t'l1_é'£Lbse11c1e ol'..lii';dili2Vglsl"oii all
these aspects. the conclusion I'€21Ql'"i"€Ci {ha Trial Cioufl CE1I11'10l'L
be ziccepied.
13. Siiicyé 1’1. \iféisvl’._oi1lyA3i2; sr.iif.~«.l_’oi’_b_*a_re injurictiiori based on title
and as i.h.eA’plai’11lii’l’ljéislfp1’Vo’dili’t1;éd his title deeds; coupled wiih
thee RTC_:–1nd Miiiaiion7’exi:i:’ac.l.s. the Court. below ought to have
e§~ia.n’1i1’ied the ii’1;ii’.t’ei’ tailiifig note of the docrumentaiy ccvideiioe.
Tl*is_’:_ l_1:’E1»~’£flI’1{:”–l_£1!!l:€i 2-1 claim to the land in quesuon on the
gi”()U1:1L1._mll1E1l’.ill:lifiif-Q been not.il”ied for acquisitlion. ought to have
:,.«pi'<::di.1(éecl i'clé-veiiit. docuiiicnis to prove t.l121l. the land in C}U€S'l.i()l"1
noi.iI'ied dl'C',E.l that E1CQE.li1'E'.Cl for f()1'E]'1£-1l'iOI1 of ring
The €ibS<;'.1"i('.('. of l.hese 1'clevam n'iat'(:i'ials has resulted in
, j1,id.gi11em passed lay l:l'1e Trial Court, which does £101, address
(3 Iiizlizi g.__;i'ie\=*ai1("<: of llht' plz¢i.i;':i.il"l'. MI'. l.5'iiti'e Gowda-1 Sl1bl'1'1li.S
RI-'A 2254/2()cs
1 O
that since a portion 0:’ Eand Comprised in 83/. No.24 is acquired
for pubiic purpose and has been already utilized, BDA may be
given an lopp0rit.1i’1it:y to place on record the relevant’ docunrierits
showing as to what. is the portion that is actually reqt:~1_r:c–d:”L:ari’d’
wiietiier the suit property is pa-11*t oi’ the property ‘T
can oniy be done before the Trial C()i,1I’1.;'”S.1,1ffi(‘)€? for piiifpose
of this case. to observe that the jucfgnient det.~i’ee.;$a1ss»e§tl.§5j;*.:
the Tris} Court eaniiot be sttstaiiiezi arid”-tghe. i11at’terV”re.qLiires
fresh eonsideraiion.
14. I-Ienee, this appeal judgment.
and decree of tf1’1e_~vV’ifi’i’ali C}t5″t~;ift’. set aside. The matter is
remanded “:96 _fresh C(:n1li’s.iderati0i1 after providing fresh
t)p};)ortt1;ii?y_ to .lbe,th*t:l’1el’pari.ies. It is made clear that the
deieiid’aIit.–T5’DA..shaII 15;-%”‘g1ven an opportunity to lead evidence
ini–.stli.n.pet1’i_:Vt;f’ its “del5e11tée and the Trial Court shall c:onsi.de1′ all
the deetlment_sf..pr0duced by the piaintiff before recording any
i’ fiiiciing 0n,t_}ie COI1’i.(‘ir1i.iOL}S issues.
safi
lfiéqe
V ” KK