HANAMANTH Sb v. KARNATIkKA STATE SMALL SCALE INDUSTIRES

(By Sri: Rahul R. Asture, Adv.) APPELLANTS AND KARNATIkKA STATE SMALL SCALE INDUSTIRES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., DIVISION. OFFICE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GULBARGA, REPRESENTED BY ITh DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER, DIVISION OFFICE, GULBARGA DISTRICT. RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 0809-2011 PASSED 1N R.A.NO.04/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT AT BHALKI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAISNT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 12-i22007 PASSED IN O.S. NO.80/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE CIIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT BHALKI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The defendants in OS.No.80/1998 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn). Bhalki, have come up in this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2007 passed in the aforesaid suit and confirmed in RA,No.4/2008 by judgment and decree dated 8.9.2011. the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal are referred to by their rank before the trial Court, For -3-

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under. Plaintiff is aflotee of plot measuring to an extent of 3 acres 38 guntas situated in Sy.No.274/2 of BhaIkI village, Bidar District. The case of plaintiff is that suit schedule property was allotted to it by KIADB for establishment of small scale Industry thereon. Pursuant to the allotment made in Its favour, possession was handed over on 11.1.1994. On which industrial plots are formed. The case of plaintiff is that there was an attempt by defendants to encroach upon suit property on its south-west portion. On getting the property surveyed, plaintiff came to know that there is encroachment into its property to an extent of 34 guntas of land by defendants. Hence, suit was ified for the relief of declaration and possession.

3. In the said proceedings a counter claim is also made by defendants contending that an extent of 34 guntas of land is granted In their favour by land grant committee considering the that defendants were in continuous possession and enjoyment of suit property for a long period, in that behalf occupancy certificate was also issued to them in .(‘ form and by virtue of that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. -4-

4. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions between the parties proceeded to frame in all nine issues, as under: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves himself to be the owner in possession of the entire suit land? 2) Whether the first defendant proves that the land grant committee Bhalki, granted the occupancy rights of the following portion of the suit land in his (D- 1) favour? 0-A. 34-G in Sy.No.274 bounded as under: E. Remaining portion of SyNo.274 N: South: Land Sy.No.276, belonging to Dl. 3) Whether the plaintiff proves that Dl is illegally interfering with his (pltl) peacefull in the suit land? 4) Whether the pltf is entitled to the reliefs prayed for? 5) Whether Dl is entitled to the relief of declaration of his title over the said OA.34G Portion of the suit land? 6) Whether Dl proves his lawful possession over the said OA.34-G., portion of the suit land? 7) Whether Dl is entitled to the reliefs prayed for? -5- 8) Whether the court fees paid by the parties is sufficient? 9) What order and decree? Addl.issue No. Whether plaintiff is entitle, for possession of 34 guntas of land as a alternative relief?

5. And held issue No.1 and additional issue in the affirmative, 2nd issue partly in the affirmative, 5th and 6th issues in the negative, issue No.3 does not survive for consideration, so far as issue No.8 is concerned, a separate order was passed and disposed of suit by final order answering issue Nos.4, 7 and 9 along with other issues. Being aggrieved by said judgment and decree RA.No.4/2008 on the file of Fast Track Court at Bhalki, wherein 1 5t appellate court framed the following points for consideration: defendants preferred passed, regular appeal

1. Whether passed the impugned judgment and decree OS.No.80/1998 dated 12.12.2007 is capricious. perverse. erroneous and against the law and merits of the case and interference of this court is needed?

2. What order? -6-

6. After hearing the counsel appellants respondent, answered the point for consideration in negative and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree of 1t appellate court defendants have come up In this second appeal.

7. In the nutsheli, trial court which appreciated the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record has given a finding on the facts of the case to the effect that suit schedule property is the property of KIADB having acquired the same in the manner known to law and thereafter, allotted the same in favour of plaintiff. The trial Court also obsenred that pursuant to the allotment made In favour of plaintiff in the original suit it has formed a layout of Industrial plots and utilised the same for its Industrial activity. In that view of matter considering the oral and documentary evidence has given a finding on fact that suit schedule property Is absolute property of plaintiff having acquired the same under allotment from KIADB. So far as counter claim of defendants is concerned, the same is not considered. It is further seen that 1st appellate court being the court of appeal where Judgment and decree passed by trial court was reconsidered both on question of law - -7- and as well as on facts and thereafter rightly come to the conclusion that judgment and decree passed by trial court is just and proper.

8. In that view of matter, against the finding of both trial court and as well as first appellate court regarding facts leading to allotment of suit property in favour of plaintiff being upheld and defendants having failed to establish the grant of occupancy certificate in their favour in respect of the same property, which is allotted to plaintiff, question of reconsidering the same in this second appeal does not arise. Even otherwise, in the light of finding of both courts below on facts being just and proper this Court find that no substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal.

9. Since no substantial question of law arises consideration, this appeal does not call for admission. Hence the same is dismissed at the stage of admission itself by confirming the judgment and decree passed by trial court confirmed by 1 S appellate court. nd. Sd/ JUDGE