The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2023 (LAC) BETWEEN: SRI. G. PARAMASIVAIAH S/O LATE H. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT No.7, 1ST FLOOR KEMPANNA LAYOUT 1ST MAIN ROAD PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU-560 020 (BY SRI. HARISH BYRASANDRA NARASAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AMITH NAYAK, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT AND: 1 . 2 . SMT. SUNITHA D/O LATE BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT No.323, 15TH CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU-560 080 SRI. D. VINAY S/O K.S. DINESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT No.323, 15TH CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU-560 080 - 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 2 KUMARI D. VIDYA D/O K.S. DINESH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT No.323, 15TH CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU-560 080 SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O LATE H. GANGAPPA W/O M. SHANTKUMAR AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT No.380, "POORNIMA" 4TH D MAIN, 12TH CROSS WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II STAGE BENGALURU-560 086 SMT. UMADEVI D/O LATE H. GANGAPPA W/O D.S. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT. No.42, 14TH CROSS II STAGE, 2ND PHASE WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU-560 086 SMT. RUDRAMMA D/O LATE H. GANGAPPA W/O LATE CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT. CHENNAKESHAVA TEMPLE STREET TARIKERE TOWN CHIKMAGALURU-577 228 SMT. VANAJAKSHI D/O LATE H. GANGAPPA W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT. GANESHA TEMPLE STREET NEW SATELLITE TOWN YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064 - 8 . 9 . 3
Legal Reasoning
against the judgment before this Court in RFA No.769/2022, till date no interim reliefs are granted in either of the appeals. In the meanwhile, father of the first respondent has - 9 illegally deleted the name of appellant from the khata of the acquired property and the same was challenged by the appellant before the Municipal Authority/ Deputy Commissioner and subsequently a Writ Petition No.15264/2006 was filed before this Court and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2010 and the name of appellant was restored. The respondent had challenged the said order in Writ Appeals No.3835-36/2010 before this Court. The Writ Appeals were disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2011 and confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 5. The first respondent had submitted her objections to KIADB for present acquisition and BMRCL issued a letter dated 23.02.2021 bearing No.BMRCL/BhooSwaa/ARP-KDH- 2B/2020-21 to KIADB, noting the title dispute over acquired property and directed to pass a general award. This being the situation, the first respondent got entered her name in the Khata fraudulently by the Assistant Revenue Officer (ARO). The SLAO of KIADB issued a modified Notification on 16.07.2021 stating that the first respondent is the land - 10 owner and no notice was issued to the appellant before these fraudulent changes were made. The SLAO has passed an award on 28.06.2021 and deposited the compensation amount with extreme haste, in violation of appellant’s rights. The BMRCL issued a letter to SLAO bearing No.BMRCL/ BhooSwaa/phase-2/ARP-KDH-2B/2019-20/39, releasing the compensation of Rs.33,08,19,452/- towards acquisition in favour of the first respondent and the compensation was released to the first respondent. 6. The appellant had preferred a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.12988/2021 for quashing of revised Notification issued in favour of the first respondent and to
Arguments
SMT. SARVA MANGALA GOWRI D/O LATE H. GANGAPPA W/O P. MADAPPA, MAJOR R/AT No.54/B, 1ST CROSS MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 040 SMT. SARVAMANGALAMMA D/O LATE H. GANGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS., G. SHANTAKUMARI W/O G. SHADAKSHARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT No.34, 1ST STREET ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 003 10 . SRI. G. GURUPRASAD S/O LATE GURUBASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT No.1134, 35TH CROSS 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041 11 . SRI. G. NIJAGUNAMURTHY S/O LATE N. GURUBASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS No.34, GREEN FIELD II SINGAPUR GARDEN GUBBALALA GATE DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU-560 062 12 . SRI. DR. G. MANJUNATHA (GURU BASAVAIAH MANJUNATH) S/O LATE B. GURUBASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT No.2718, 17TH CROSS BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 070 - 4 13 . SRI. G. SOMASUNDAR S/O LATE B. GURUBASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT No.2718, 17TH CROSS BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 070 14 . SRI. G. PRABHUSHANKAR S/O LATE B. GURUBASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. No.D-29/5 DRDO TOWNSHIP PHASE-II, KAGGADASAPURA C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 093 15 . SMT. G. NIRMALA W/O SHIVKUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT No.14, YAMUNA BAI ROAD MADHAVANAGAR BENGALURU-560 001 16 . SMT. NANJAMMA UMAYAL D/O LATE H. GANGAPPA W/O H.N. VEERABHADRAN AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS R/AT FLAT No.38/10 GEETHA APARTMENT UPPER STREET, BASANTHANAGAR CHENNAI SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HER LRs., 16(a). V. MOHANKUMAR S/O LATE H.N. VEERABHADRAN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT. 7, ROYAL COUNTRY DRIVE BRAMPTON ONTARIO L6P1R9, CANADA 16(b). V. VIJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE H.N. VEERABHADRAN - 5 AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT. No.16, II CROSS, 16TH MAIN HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054 *16(c). V. RAMESH BABU S/O LATE H.N. VEERABHADRAN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT. FLAT No.16 CHANDRALOK APARTMENT, 34 FLOWERS ROAD KILPAUK, CHENNAI-600 010 16(d). VEENA VANI D/O LATE H.N. VEERABHADRAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT. 140 GRANDVIEW DRIVE, GLASTONBURY CT 06033 USA 16(e). HEMALATHA N.C. D/O LATE H.N. VEERABHADRAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT.230 GREEN TREE, TAVERN ROAD NORTH WALES, PA 19454 USA 16(f). USHA R. RAMAN D/O LATE H.N. VEERABHADRAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT.1453, MICKELSON CT, DAVENPORT FL 33896 USA 16(g). V. PRASAD BABU S/O LATE H.N. VEERABHADRAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT. FLAT B 308, AQUA-1, OZONE URBAN, KANNAMANGALA NH-7 (NEW NH-44), BENGALURU-562 110 17 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER KIADB (METRO RAIL PROJECT) 1ST FLOOR, RP BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-01 18 . CHIEF MANAGER BMRCL MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD * Corrected as per the Chamber Order dated 01.04.2025 - 6 SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU-01 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 TO R7; SRI. SHIVAKUMARA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R15; SRI. SHANMUKAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R16; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R17 V.C.O. DATED 16.08.2023; SRI. HARISH N.N., ADVOCATE FOR R18) THIS MFA FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2022 PASSED IN LAC No.30/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH No.17), DISPOSING THE REFERENCE U/Ss.30 AND 31(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR FOR JUDGMENT ON PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: AND COMING ON 06.01.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Award dated 09.11.2022 passed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH No.17) in LAC No.30/2022. - 7 2. We have heard Shri. Harish Byrasandra Narasappa, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Amith Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. S.M. Chandrashekar, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Chandrashekar H.B., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3. 3. Appellant is the owner of the property bearing Sy. No.48/1 and 125/1 bearing Khata No.72/647/241/1 situated at Hebbal village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The Government of Karnataka has acquired the property to the extent of 811.18 Sq. mtrs in land bearing Sy. No. 125/1 situated at, Hebbal, village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, vide notification no. CI 104 SPQ (E) 2020, dated 24/8/2020, for Bengaluru Metro Rail Project, under the provisions of Section 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 ('KIAD Act' for short). Appellant had purchased the said property vide registered Sale Deed and subsequently, said property was converted to Industrial Property vide order bearing No.BDIS/ALN/SR/39/81-82, dated 23/4/1982. A portion of property measuring 2 guntas - 8 in Sy. No.48/1 and 7 guntas in Sy. No. 125/1 was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and compensation was awarded to the appellant. Further, in the year 2011-12, NHAI acquired 2700 Sq. fts. in Sy. No. 48/1 and 125/1. One Sri Sarvamangala (sister of appellant) had filed a suit in O.S. No.1216/2011 for partition and separate possession in respect of various properties including acquired property. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) deposited the compensation amount before the concerned Court and the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.04.2016 with a finding that the acquired property is a self acquired property of appellant and compensation was given to appellant. 4. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal against the said judgment before this Court in RFA No.1239/2016 and the same is pending consideration. During the pendency of LAC No. 30/2022, the first respondent has filed an appeal
Decision
quash the award passed by the SLAO. This Court disposed of the matter by directing the KIADB to recover the amount disbursed to the first respondent and await the decision of the adjudication regarding entitlement to the same. Subsequently respondents No.4 to 16 filed impleading applications before the Trial Court and the same was allowed. Earlier, a portion of property was also notified for acquisitions by BMRCL vide Notification No.CI65SPQ2019, - 11 dated 29.11.2019 by the Government of Karnataka. Appellant was notified as the rightful owner of the property and in the said Notification, the first respondent had filed objection before SLAO, on 22.10.2020. The SLAO had referred the matter to the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, the same is pending as LAC No.162/2020. 7. The trial Court came to the conclusion that RFAs No.1213/2016, 1239/2016, 1397/2016, 769/2022 are pending in respect of acquired properties bearing Sy. No.125/1. If it is held that the acquired property is a joint family property, then all the legal heirs of Gangappa would be entitled to equal share in compensation amount along with interest. If it is held that the properties are not joint family properties, the claimants' No. 3 and 4 would be entitled to compensation amount along with interest. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the findings of trial Court are in favour of the appellant but trial Court has erred in arriving to the conclusion with regard to rights of appellant. The trial Court ought to have applied the principle of res-judicata but, - 12 it has erred by applying the principles of adverse possession in the present case. It is further submitted that the issue regarding title and ownership already been adjudicated by the trial Court in O.S.No.1216/2011 and it is held that the acquired property is a self acquired property of appellant. Further, in LAC No.187/2005, wherein another portion of property was acquired and after full-fledged trial, the compensation was granted to appellant and the same is not challenged by any respondents. All the claimants in the LAC No.30/2022 were parties to the O.S.No.1216/2011. 9. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the trial Court while holding that res-judicata is applicable, erred in not declaring the appellant is entitled for the compensation amount. The law is very clear that mere pendency of appeal does not mitigate the application of res- judicata to a case. The Trial court erroneously came to the conclusion that the principle of adverse possession under Section 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the facts of the present case. The appellant had filed a suit in O.S. No.265/1995 for injunction and the same was withdrawn as - 13 not pressed. Later, he has filed another suit in O.S.No.2771/2019, which is still pending. He further submitted that the plea of adverse possession was never raised by any of the respondents at any stage. Therefore, application of principle of adverse possession is unfounded and erroneous. Key ingredients of adverse possession itself are not satisfied in the present case therefore it is not proper to apply the principle of adverse possession. 10. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments:- • Narasamma and Others v. A. Krishnappa (Dead) through Representatives, reported in (2020) 15 SCC 218; • Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and Others, reported in (2004)10 SCC 779; • Mohan Lal (Deceased) through his LRs. Kachru and Others v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar and Another, reported in (1996)1 SCC 639; • Dagadabai (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Abbas Alias Gulab Rustum Pinjari, reported in (2017)13 SCC 705; - 14 • Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma Alias Nacharama, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 150; • Abraham Mathew and Others v. Mariamma Yohannan, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 28390; • Raj Lakshmi Dasi and Others v. Banamali Sen and Others/Bholanath Sen and others v. Raj Lakshmi Dasiand others, reported in Supreme Court Reports [1953] 154; • Daryao and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (1962) 1 SCR 574; • Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Another, reported in (1999) 5 SCC 590; • Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector and Another, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 190; • Ramachandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by LRs. and Others v. Vithu Hira Mahar (Dead) by LRs and Others, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 273; and • Narayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu v. Narayana Prabhu Krishna Prabhu (Dead) by LRs, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 181. 11. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the dispute regarding title to the acquired property is admittedly pending in appeal - 15 before this Court and the direction to release the amount to the appellant as sought for cannot be granted until the title dispute is resolved. It is contended that the lack of challenge raised at an earlier instance cannot aid the appellant since the dispute to title is clearly raised and is at large. Further, it is contended that as against the very same judgment, MFA No.8135/2019 was filed by the respondents which was dismissed and it has become final. It is further submitted that the possession of the respondents is a fact and the filing of a suit for recovery of possession by the appellant is clear. It is argued that the Principle of Res- Judicata does not apply at all and that it is on the basis of directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.12988/2021 filed by the appellant herein that the impugned order was rendered. 12. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 has placed reliance on the following judgments:- • Smt. Sunitha v. Sri. G. Paramasivaiah and others, by Order dated 01.07.2024 passed in Review Petition No.586/2023 in MFA No.8135/2019 (CPC); - 16 • Sri. G. Paramasivaiah v. Smt. B. Sunitha, by Order dated 11.02.2020 passed in MFA No.8135/2019 (CPC); • Ram Prakash v. Smt. Charan Kaur and Another, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3760; and • Madhavi Amma Bhavani Amma and Others v. Velu Pillai and Others, reported in AIR 1990 Kerala 144. 13. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, we notice that the judgment under appeal has already been subjected to an appeal at the instance of the respondents herein and has been upheld. However, the contention that this appeal cannot be considered on merits and is hit by the Principle of Res-Judicata cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the issue in question is different and distinct from the one raised in the earlier appeal filed by the respondents. However, we notice that the finding in the partition suit that the acquired properties are the self-acquired properties of the appellant is pending in RFAs before this Court. The change of Khata, Water, Elecricity connection etc., is also clearly subject to the decision in the pending dispute as to title. Therefore, we are - 17 of the opinion that the finding of the Reference Judge that the question with regard to the right to the compensation in respect of the acquisition is to be decided on the basis of the outcome of the appeals cannot be found faulted with. We immediately notice that there is an apparent error in the operational portion of the Judgment in as much as the Reference Court has recorded that in case the properties are found to be the self-acquired property of claimant No.2, then, the compensation has to be apportioned between respondents No.1 and 3. This is apparently and is obviously an error apparent on the face of the record. In case, the properties found to be the self-acquired property of the second claimant, who is the appellant herein, he would obviously be entitled to the compensation arising from the acquisition as well. The statement to the contrary in the operational portion of the judgment is therefore apparently an error. 14. Having considered the contentions advanced in detail, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Reference Court does not require any other interference in - 18 this appeal, except to correct the said error. The appeal is therefore allowed to the limited extent of clarifying that in case, the RFAs are decided finding that the property is the self-acquired property of the appellant, the appellant will be entitled to the compensation arising there from. The Judgment and Award dated 09.11.2022 passed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH No.17) in LAC No.30/2022, is affirmed in all other respects. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*