Bangalore District Court
Anjanabai vs Bangalore Development Authority Bda on 20 December, 2024
KABC010072982017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-38), BENGALURU CITY.
:PRESENT:
SRI. YASHAWANTH KUMAR , B.A.(Law), LL.B,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
C/c XXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-38), Bengaluru City.
DATED This the 20th day of December 2024
O.S.No. 2044/2017
PLAINTIFF/S SRI. ANJANABAI @
ANJANA MURALI KADANDALE,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O. LATE .K.N. MURALI,
R/AT NO. 523, SHOBA DEW
FLOWER, 4TH CROSS,
SARAKKI MAIN ROAD,
J P NAGAR, 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU 78.
(Pl By Sri. NJR, Advocate)
Versus
O.S.No.2044/2017
2
DEFENDANT/S BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY. BDA COMPLEX,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU 20.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
(DFS by Sri. SY, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 21.3.2017
Nature of suit Declaration & Injunction suit
Date of commencement 21.07.2023
of recording of evidence.
Date on which judgment 20.12.2024
was pronounced.
Total Duration. Years Months Days
07 08 30
C/c. XXXVII ACCJ, BENGALURU
O.S.No.2044/2017
3
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of
declaration of her title over the suit schedule property and for
mandatory injunction in the nature of a direction to the
defendant to allot an alternative site in any of the layout formed
by it equivalent to the area of schedule property.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
The City Improvement Trust Board [CITB] presently known
as Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] issued preliminary
notification No.RDH 34/LTB/59 dt: 26.11.1959 and final
notification vide notification No.RD-3/L/TB dt: 29.9.1965 in
respect of Sy.No.137 of Koramangala village, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk measuring to an extent of 1 acre 19
guntas. Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s vendor K. Shankar purchased
the said Sy.No.137 of Koramangala village along with Sy.No.34
of Jakkasandra village through registered sale deed
dt:21.1.1961 and he was put in possession of the property. By
the CITB Resolution No.1160, dt: 11.8.1973 and approved by
the Govt. by its Order No. HJUV67MNJ76 dt: 27.2.1978, CITB
Bengaluru withdrawn the notification in respect of Sy.No.137 of
O.S.No.2044/2017
4Koramangala village. Therefore, the 30 guntas of land belonging
to the plaintiff’s vendor K.Shankar was dropped from
acquisition and K.Shankar continued in possession of the said
30 guntas of land as its absolute owner. K. Shankar formed
layout in Sy.No.137 of Koramangala village comprising various
sites and out of it one site bearing No.1 of Jyoti Nivas college
main road, 5th block, Koramangala layout, Bengaluru and
another property bearing site No.1 situated in the same layout,
which are described as Item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule
were sold in favour of plaintiff’s husband K.N.Murali through a
registered sale deed dated 24.11.1983. Pursuant to the said
sale deed said K.N. Murali was put in possession of the said
properties and he continued in possession of the same.
K.N.Murali died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff as his
surviving legal heirs to succeed his property. The plaintiff
acquired the suit properties and continued in possession and
enjoyment of the same. The schedule property were within the
limits of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and it was assessed to
property tax , in respect of the same betterment charges were
paid. The plaintiff continued in possession of the schedule
properties. However, the CITB presently known as BDA
O.S.No.2044/2017
5
attempted to encroach upon the schedule properties and
encumbering sites formed in Sy.No.137 of Koramangala village,
though it did not have any right or interest in it. The plaintiff
along with their adjacent site owners applied to the defendant
for change of land used from park as to commercial use on
12.9.1999 and defendant vide the letter No. 1266/199-2000 dt:
1.2.2000 called upon the plaintiff and others to remit a sum of
Rs.15,000/- each towards the advertisement charges and
accordingly, the said sum was deposited by the plaintiff.
Defendant had published a notice of intended change of land
use in The Hindu Daily News paper dt: 25.5.2000, but the
defendant failed to discharge its statutory obligations. Left with
no other option, the plaintiff and the adjacent site owners filed
Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P. No. 11163/2007 and by the order dt: 24.6.2010 the writ
petition was allowed and directed the defendant to provide
alternative sites of similar dimension or to pay compensation
equivalent to market value. Aggrieved by the same, the
defendant has preferred Writ Appeal No. 4745/2011 before the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and it was allotted by the
Division Bench by its Judgment dt: 24.6.2010 and the writ
O.S.No.2044/2017
6
petition was remitted back to the Single Judge, in the light of
the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
vide its order dt: 20.9.2011. After remand the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka disposed of the writ petition vide order dt:
28.10.2015 observing that the petitioners therein including the
plaintiff herein may have to obtain a declaration of their title in
respect of the sites carved out of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.137
of Koramangala village from a competent Court of law,
thereafter they may make an application to the BDA for grant of
alternative site. The suit schedule properties were merged with
other sites and have been utilized by defendant and therefore
the plaintiff does not seek the relief of possession as it is not
feasible, on the other hand she is seeking allotment of alternate
site. Hence, the plaintiff is restricted her claim for a declaration
of title and for allotment of alternate site. Hence, this suit.
3. After service of summons, the defendant appeared and
filed his written statement. It is contended that the suit of the
plaintiff is not maintainable. This court has no jurisdiction to
try the suit, which is subjected to acquisition proceedings.
Neither the plaintiff has any right, title, interest over the
schedule property nor her vendor. The plaintiff has suppressed
O.S.No.2044/2017
7
true facts before the court. It has admitted that Sy. No. 137 of
Koramangala village was acquired in the year 1959 and it has
been denotified to the Kathedars i.e., Krishna Iyengar and
K.N.Muniswamy Reddy. The plaintiff has claimed that one
K.Shankar has purchased the land in Sy.No.137 of
Koramangala village in the year 1961. The defendant has not
de-notified the land in the name of K.Shankar and therefore he
has no right over the de-notified lands. Therefore, the plaintiff
or her vendor never in possession of the land at any point of
time. The plaintiff not being the owner of the suit schedule
properties the question of allotting alternate site does not arise.
Further the question of dis-possessing the plaintiff from the suit
properties also does not arise. The plaintiff has got no right, title
or interest over the suit schedule properties. She has filed a
false suit with an intention to knock of the public property. The
documents produced by the plaintiff are concocted and created
documents. The plaintiff is trying to claim the right over non-
existing sites. In fact, the defendant has acquired Sy.No.137 of
Koramangala village for formation of Koramangala layout vide
preliminary notification dt: 26.11.1959 and final notification
dt:28.9.1965. An award has been passed and possession has
O.S.No.2044/2017
8
been taken over by the defendant. The defendant has formed
layout and handed it over to BBMP. The sale deeds of the
plaintiff and her vendors are subsequent to the acquisition
proceedings. The suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff
has not issued statutory notice U/sec.64 of BDA Act. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the
following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in
office :
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that one Sri. K. Shankar had
acquired land in Sy.No. No. 137 of Koramangala Village,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and Sy.No. 34 of
Jakkasandra village, of the above Hobli, under the
registered Sale Deed dated 21.01.1961 and he was put in
possession of the said property as alleged?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the husband of the plaintiff
by name Mr. K.M. Murali had acquired the title and
possession over the suit schedule property under the
registered sale deed dated 24.11.1983 from the said Sri. K.
Shankar?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that after the death of her
husband, Sri. K.M. Murali had acquired for the suit
schedule property as his surviving legal heir?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that without the authority of
law the Defendant has dispossessed her from the suit
schedule property as stated in para No. 12 of the plaint?
O.S.No.2044/2017
9
5. Whether the Defendant proves that this court has no
jurisdiction to try this suit as contended in para No. 2 of the
written statement?
6. Whether Defendant proves that the vendor of the husband
of the plaintiff had no salable interest in land bearing Sy.No.
137 of Koramangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk as contended in para No.2 of the written statement?
7. Whether the Defendant proves that the suit is barred by
limitation?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
9. What order or decree?
5. During the course of arguments Issue No.1 is modified
as under with the consent of both parties and they have
submitted that they have not lead their further evidence and
submitted further arguments.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that one Sri. K. Shankar had
acquired land in Sy.No. No. 137 of Koramangala Village,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk of the above Hobli,
under the registered Sale Deed dated 21.01.1961 and he
was put in possession of the said property as alleged?
6. In order to prove her case, the Special Power of Attorney
holder of the plaintiff has been examined as PW-1 and got
marked documents at Ex.P1 to P47. The SLAO of defendant has
been examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D-1 and D-2.
O.S.No.2044/2017
10
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff, he has filed his written arguments. He has relied on the
following decisions.
1. AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1727 (Maria Margarida Sequeria
Fernandes and Ors Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (Dead)
through L.Rs.
2. AIR 2012 Supreme court 1743 (Surendra and Ors Vs. State of
U.P.)
3. Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 2036/2017, dtd:
13.2.2024( Anita P. Gurnani Vs. B.D.A.)
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
defendant, He has also filed his written arguments. He has relied
on decision in RFA No.719/2015, dt: 13.12.2023 (Abhiman
Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., & others Vs.
Kasim Sab Peersab Nadaf and others)
9. My answer to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 to 3 & 6: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.5 : In the Negative.
Issue No.7 : In the Negative.
Issue No.8 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.9 : As per the final order,
O.S.No.2044/2017
11for the following.
REASONS
10. Issues No.1 to 3 & 6 : It is the contention of the
plaintiff that her husband late K.N.Murali has purchased the
suit schedule properties through two separate registered sale
deeds, both dated 24.11.1983 from K.Shankar. It is further
contended that K.Shankar purchased 30 guntas of land in
Sy.No.137 of Koramangala village through registered sale deed
dt: 21.1.1961. Thereafter, he formed a layout in it and sold the
site No.1 and 2 to her husband K.N. Murali. Meanwhile, the
acquisition proceedings were also undertaken by CITB,
Bengaluru in respect of Sy.No.137 of Koramangala village,
Subsequently, Sy.No.137 was dropped from acquisition
proceedings. However, the defendant has encroached upon
entire 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.137 including suit sites. The
defendant does not deny the acquisition proceedings taken place
in respect of Sy.No.137 and de-notification of 30 guntas of land.
The defendant has pleaded that it has acquired Sy.No.137 for
formation of Koramangala layout vide preliminary notification
dt:26.11.1959 and final notification dt: 28.9.1965. The award
has been passed in respect of acquisition and possession has
O.S.No.2044/2017
12
been handed over. Subsequently, the defendant formed layout
and handed over it to BBMP. It is their contention that the
plaintiff has created documents in respect of the suit schedule
properties and they have suppressed the true facts before the
court. It is their contention that vendor K.Shankar had no right
to execute sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule properties
in favour of any one much less the plaintiff’s husband
K.N.Murali. Further, the defendant has taken up contention that
it has denotified the acquisition of land in Sy.No.137 of
Koramangala village measuring 30 guntas in favour of Kathedars
Krishna Iyengar and K.N.Muniswamy Reddy, as it was a land
already developed by building a Ganesha temple, Sharana
Bhavan, PMR Kalayana Mantapa/Memorial Bhavan, Krishna
Temple and they had sold the some of the extent of land to third
parties and those purchasers have built Pucca houses. It is their
specific contention that the defendant has not de-notified the
land in the name of vendor K.Shankar and he had no title and
possession over the said land.
11. The defendant is blowing hot and cold. In para No.3 of
the written statement, they have stated that 30 guntas of land in
Sy.No.137 was de-notified in the name of Krishna Iyengar and
O.S.No.2044/2017
13
K.N.Muniswamay Reddy. But in para No.10 of their written
statement, they have stated that, they have acquired the land,
taken possession of it, formed layout and handed over the layout
to BBMP.
12. Both the plaintiffs and defendants have produced
documents in support of their case. Earliest document is Ex.D-1
preliminary notification dt: 26.11.1959 published in Mysore
Gazette dt: 28.1.1960. It shows that Sy.No.137 totally measuring
1 acres 19 guntas including 29 guntas of Kharab land belonging
to T.V. Krishna Iyengar S/o. B.G. Krishna Iyengar was proposed
to be acquired by the Government of Mysore for formation of
Koramangala Layout. Ex.D-2 is the copy of final notification in
respect of acquisition of the above said land. But in this
document in the column of name of Kathedar or owner in
addition to the name of T.V.Krishna Iyanger S/o. B.G. Krishna
Iyengar, the name of K.N.Muniswamy Reddy is also found. The
date of this notification is not clearly visible in this document.
But there is no dispute that final notification was made on
28.9.1965. Ex.P-21 is a document, it is withdrawal notification
dt: 27.2.1978, it shows that the above said land i.e., 1 acre 19
guntas including 29 guntas of kharab land in Sy.No.137 of
O.S.No.2044/2017
14
Koramangala village belonging to T.V.Krishna Iyenger S/o.
K.G.Krishna Iyengar and K.N.Muniswamy Reddy was withdrawn
from the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it is clear from the
above documents that 1 acre 19 guntas including 29 guntas of
kharab land in Sy.No.137 situated at Koramangala village was
acquired and taken possession by CITB and thereafter in the
year 1978 the said land was de-notified from acquisition.
13. Ex.P-11 is the certified copies of the same document i.e.,
sale deed dt: 21.1.1961, it shows that K.N.Muniswamy Reddy
has sold an extent of East to West 162 ft and North to south 190
feet in Sy.No.137 of Koramangala village to Sri. K.Shankar for
consideration of Rs.6,000/- along with another land i.e.,
Sy.No.34 measuring East to West 315 feet and North to South
82 feets situated in Jakkasandra village. Ex.P-3 is the original
registered sale deed executed by K.Shankar in favour of the
Sri.K.N.Murali, who is the husband of the plaintiff herein in
respect of item No.1 in the plaint schedule i.e., site No.1 dt:
23.11.1983. In the schedule, the survey number in which the
site formed is not stated. However, in para 2 of the sale deed, it
has been stated that vendor K. Shankar is the absolute owner of
schedule property therein, which was originally a portion of
O.S.No.2044/2017
15Sy.No.137 of Koramangala village having purchased the same
from K.N.Muniswamay Reddy S/o Nagappa of Koramangala
village through a registered sale deed dt: 21.1.1961. Ex.P-4 is
the another original registered sale deed executed by K.Shankar
in favour of the Sri. K.N.Murali, who is he husband of the
plaintiff herein in respect of Item No.2 in the plaint schedule i.e.,
site No.1 dt: 23.11.1983. In the schedule, the survey number in
which the site formed is not stated. However, in para 2 of the
sale deed it has been stated that vendor K.Shankar is the
absolute owner of schedule property therein, which was
originally a portion of Sy.No.137 of Koramangala village having
purchased the same from K.N.Muniswamay Reddy S/o Nagappa
of Koramangala village through a registered sale deed dt:
21.1.1961. Ex.P-12 is the certified copy of the encumbrance
certificate from 15.2.2957 till 31.3.1984 in respect of Sy.No.137
to an extent 332 ft x 290 fts. It reflects sale of the property by
K.Muniswamy Reddy to K. Shankar is reflected. In Ex.P-14 and
Ex.P-16 RTC extracts the name of K.Shankar is shown from the
year 1967-68 upto 1982-83.
14. There cannot be any dispute that Sy.No.137 has been
de-notified. It is the contention of the defendant that Sy.No.137
O.S.No.2044/2017
16has not been de-notified in the name of K.Shankar who is the
vendor of the plaintiff. The defendant has stated that in the land
acquired in Sy.No.137 measuring 30 guntas de-notified in favour
of Kathedars and owners Krishna Iyengar and K.N.Muniswamy
Reddy, they have developed the same by building Ganesha
temple, Sharana Bhavan, PMR Kalyana Mantapa/Memorial
Bhavan, Krishna Temple and they also sold some sites to third
parties and the purchasers had built pucca houses.
15. It is true that Sy.No.137 has not been de-notified in
the name of the plaintiff’s vendor K.Shankar. Though the sale
deed as per Ex.P-11 was executed by K.N. Muniswamy Reddy in
favour of K.Shankar on 21.1.1961 itself, the name of said
K.Shankar has not been mentioned in final notification in the
year 1965 and subsequent acquisition proceedings that has
taken place in respect of Sy.No.137. In all the acquisition
proceedings which has taken place subsequent to 1961 in
respect of Sy.No.137, the name of Kathedars or owners, stated
as T.V.Krishna Iyanger S/o B.G. Krishna Iyengar and
K.N.Muniswamy Reddy.
16. Ex.P-14 is the RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.137 of
Koramangala village. It shows the name of K. Shankar entered
O.S.No.2044/2017
17as per order of Tahsildar in RRT( R) 316/81-82 dt: 30.1.1982 in
respect of 30 guntas of land. Therefore, for the first time name of
K. Shankar entered in respect of Sy.No.137 in the year 1982 as
per the order of the Tahsildar. Therefore, though K. Shankar has
purchased the property in the year 1961, his name entered in
the RTC extract for the first time in the year 1982. It appears
that the name of K. Shankar was not mentioned as Kathedar or
owner in the land acquisition proceedings for the reason that his
name was not entered in the revenue records on the basis of the
sale deed executed in his favour for the year 1961. It appears
that K. Shankar kept quiet till the year 1981-82 without entering
his name in the revenue records to the property purchased by
him.
17. However, there is registered sale deed in the name of
K. Shankar executed by K.N.Muniswamy Reddy whose name is
found in the documents as Kathedar of land. Though the
defendant has contended that the plaintiff has created
documents, there is no material to show that the sale deed in
favour of K. Shankar as per Ex.P-11 has been created by the
plaintiff. It is the certified copy of the registered sale deed, it is
true that in the sale deed the extent has been shown in feet,
O.S.No.2044/2017
18however it is clear in the sale deed that the said extent is
situated in Sy.No.137 of Koramangala village and if it is
converted in to guntas, it will be almost 30 guntas. As per the
order of Tahsildar, subsequently the name of K. Shankar has
been entered into the revenue records for the year 1982, it
appears that it has not been challenged. Therefore, it cannot be
said that K. Shankar has not became the owner of the property
subsequent to execution of registered sale deed in his favour in
the year 1961.
18. Dw-1 is the Land Acquisition officer of defendant. She
has filed her affidavit as Dw-1 and got marked two documents.
But, she has not tendered her for cross-examination. Therefore,
her evidence cannot be considered for any purpose. In view of
the same there is no evidence to prove the contentions taken by
the defendants in this suit.
19. The plaintiff has produced original sale deeds executed
by K. Shankar in favour of plaintiffs husband K.N.Murali in
respect of item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties.
20. Mr.K.N.Murali having acquired the suit schedule sites
had obtained the registration of his name in the revenue
registers of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under
O.S.No.2044/2017
19
whose revenue administrative jurisdiction the schedule sites are
situated which is evidenced as per Ex.P-5 to P8 and the property
tax is evidenced at Ex.P-9 and P10. Consequent to the suit
schedule sites coming within the revenue administrative
jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the suit
schedule site was assigned corporation no.1, PID No.67-5-1 and
Corporation No.2, PID No.67-5-2. It is important to note that the
name of K.N.Murali during his life time has been referred in the
letter of intimation dated 20.09.1989 at Ex.P-21 issued by the
defendant regarding the de-notification of Sy.No.137.
21. Considering, all these evidence I am of the opinion
that the plaintiff has proved Issues No.1 to 3 hence, Issues No. 1
to 3 are answered in the affirmative and defendant failed to
prove issue no.6 in the Negative. Hence, Issue No.6 is answered
in the Negative.
22. Issues No.4: Ex.P-28 is the resolution of the defendant
dt: 30.10.2001. It clearly observed that the land in Sy.No.137 of
Koramangala village has been used by the defendant i.e., BDA
for formation of road and layout. It clearly shows that the
defendant has taken possession of the schedule properties.
There is no dispute that 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.137 has
O.S.No.2044/2017
20
been de-notified. Under such circumstances, the defendant
could not have utilized the land for the purpose of formation of
road and layout. Therefore, such taking over of possession and
use of land by defendant is illegal. The documents clearly show
that in the year 1961 K. Shankar has purchased Sy.No.137 and
thereafter in the year 1983-84 the husband of plaintiff has
purchased Item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule. Meanwhile, the
land has been de-notified in the year 1978. Therefore, it can be
made out that the defendant has illegally dispossessed the
plaintiffs from the schedule property and they have illegally
utilized the same for the purpose of formation of road and
layout. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
23. Issue No. 5: The land in Sy.No.137 was acquired, later
it has been de-notified from acquisition, therefore, it is not an
acquired land. Hence, it cannot be said that this court has no
jurisdiction to try this suit. Further, in the order of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.11163/2007 marked as
per Ex. P-32, it has been observed by the Hon’ble High Court in
para No.4 as under:
” 4: Until and unless petitioners exert themselves
before a competent court of law and obtain declaration of
O.S.No.2044/2017
21their title to the immovable properties as sites carved out
of 30 guntas of land in Sy. No. 137 of Koramangala
village, petitioners are dis-entitled to the aforesaid
directions by invoking the extra ordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution. If and
when petitioners obtain a Judgment and decree, as
noticed, may make an application to the BDA, which, if
made, there is no reason to believe will not be considered
and orders passed in accordance with law.
Petitions must fail and are rejected.”
The plaintiff has clearly stated that she has filed this suit in
view of the above observations of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka. This is a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff in
respect of de-notified land. Therefore, it cannot be said that this
court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit.
Accordingly, I answer Issue No.5 in the Negative.
24. Issue No.7:- It is the contention of the plaintiff that
she was prosecuting the matter before the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka and she has filed this suit on the basis of
observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in
W.P.No.11163/2007. Considering the same, Section 14 of the
O.S.No.2044/2017
22
Limitation Act is applicable to the present case. Therefore, the
period of limitation would starts from the order dt: 25.8.2015
passed in W.P.No.11163/2007. Therefore the suit is within
limitation. Hence, I answer Issue No.7 in the Negative.
25. Issue no.8 : In view of the discussions made above, it
is clear that the plaintiff has proved that she is the owner of
Item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule and she has been illegally
dis-possessed by the defendant and her land has been used for
formation of road and layout in it by the defendant. Under such
circumstances, it is clearly appears that the possession of the
very same land cannot be given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has
also sought for alternate sites. In view of the same, the plaintiff
is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit. Accordingly, I
answer Issue No.8 in the affirmative.
26. Issue No.9:- In view of my above discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with
costs.
The plaintiff is hereby declared as absolute
owner of plaint schedule Item No.1 and 2 of
properties.
O.S.No.2044/2017
23Further the defendant is hereby directed to
allot alternate sites in any of the layouts formed by
the defendant equivalent to the area of schedule
properties with necessary terms and conditions in
lieu of schedule item No.1 and 2 properties within
two months from this date.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer grade-I, transcribed and typed
by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this
the 20th Day of December 2024)(YASHAWANTH KUMAR)
C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
(CCH-38), BENGALURU.
Schedule Property
Item No.1All the piece and parcel of the immovable property being a
vacant land bearing site No.2(carved out of Sy. No. 137 of
Koramangala village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk),
situated at Jyothinivas college main road, 5 th block, Koramangala
Layout, Bangalore within the revenue administrative jurisdiction
of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and including all rights,
privileges and appurtenances thereto and the site measuring:
East to West : 45+25 Feet 2 North to South : 65 feet O.S.No.2044/2017 24 Totally measuring : 2,275 Square Feet and bounded as follows:
East : 1st portion of the property in site No.1
West : Property No.2,
North : Jyothi Nivas College Main Road,
South : Portion of property bearing No.1Item No.2
All the piece and parcel of the immovable property being a
vacant land bearing site No. 1(carved out of Sy. No. 137 of
Koramangala village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk),
situated at Jyothinivas college main road, 5 th block, Koramangala
Layout, Bangalore within the revenue administrative jurisdiction
of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and including all rights,
privileges and appurtenances thereto and the site measuring:
East to West : 45+25 Feet
2
North to South : 80 feet
Totally measuring : 2,800 Square Feet
and bounded as follows:
East : Portion of the B.D.A. property
West : Portion of Property No.1,
North : Jyothi Nivas College Main Road,
South : Portion of property bearing No.1
O.S.No.2044/2017
25ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW-1 - P.V.Anand Kishore PW-2 - Manohar Haridas Vachani
Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P-1 Special power of attorney given by plaintiff
to me
Ex.P-2 Certified copy of the order in
WP.No.11163/2007 dt 28.10.2015
Ex.P-3 Original registered sale deed dated
24.11.1983
Ex.P-4 Original registered sale deed dated
23.11.1983.
Ex.P-5 Katha certificate of Municipal no.1.
Ex.P-6 Katha extract of Municipal no.1.
Ex.P-7 Katha certificate of Municipal no.2.
Ex.P-8 Katha extract of Municipal no.2.
Ex.P-9 Computer generated property tax receipts.
and
Ex.P.10
Ex.P-11 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
21.01.1961.
Ex.P-12 Certified copy of the encumbrance
certificate.
Ex.P-13 Certified copy of the survey sketch.
Ex.P-14 Certified copy of RTC of Sy.No.137 from
1967-1968 till 1973-1974.
Ex.P-15 Certified copy of RTC of Sy.No.137 from
1974-1975 till 1978-1979.
Ex.P-16 Certified copy of RTC of Sy.No.137 from
1979-80 till 1982-1983.
O.S.No.2044/2017
26
Ex.P-17 Certified copy of RTC of Sy.No.137 of
1988-1989.
Ex.P-18 Certified copy of RTC of Sy.No.137 of
1995-96 and 1996-1997.
Ex.P-19 Certified copy of RTC of Sy.No.137of
1997-98 till 1999-2000.
Ex.P-20 Certified copy of withdrawal notification
dated 27.02.1978.
Ex.P-21 Certified copy of letter of intimation of
20.07.1989.
Ex.P-22 Certified copy of the letter by one Rajanna
to BDA chairman dated 07.09.2000.
Ex.P-23 Certified copy of the order in Case
No.LRF(83)363/1991.
Ex.P-24 Certified copy of the endorsement
regarding the information furnished
under RTI Act dated 11.02.2020.
Ex.P-25 Certified copy of the letter dated
06.12.2013 issued by BDA, AEE to AEE,
BBMP.
Ex.P-26 Certified copy of four survey sketches in 5
sheets.
Ex.P-27 Certified copy of the letter dated
27.12.2001 by one Rajanna to BDA
chairman.
Ex.P-28 Certified copy of the proceedings of the
BDA meeting dated 30.10.2001.
Ex.P-29 Certified copy of the public notification in
Times of India, Bengaluru Edition.
Ex.P-30 Certified copy of the order in
WP.No.11163/2007 dated 24.06.2010.
Ex.P-31 Certified copy of the order in Writ Appeal
no.4745/2011 with clubbed cases dated
20.09.2011.
O.S.No.2044/2017
27
Ex.P-32 Certified copy of the order in
WP.No.11163/2007 dated 28.10.2015.
Ex.P-33 Certified copy of the written statement
filed by defendant in OS.No.4524/2016.
Ex.P-34 Certified copy of the deposition of DW-1
OS.No.4524/2016 (chief affidavit and
cross examination).
Ex.P-35 Certified copy of the Judgment in
OS.No.4524/2016 dated 14.12.2021.
Ex.P-36 Certified copy of the decree in
OS.No.4524/2016.
Ex.P-37 Certified copy of the written statement
filed in OS.No.4529/2016.
Ex.P-38 Certified copy of the evidence of DW-1 in
OS.No.4529/2016 (both chief and cross
examination).
Ex.P-39 Certified copy of the Judgment in
OS.No.4529/2016 dated 14.12.2021.
Ex.P-40 Certified copy of the decree in
OS.No.4529/2016.
Ex.P-41 Certified copy of the Judgment in
OS.No.4542/2016 dated 11.07.2023.
Ex.P-42 Certified copy of the decree in
OS.No.4542/2018
Ex.P-43 Katha extract dated 13.03.2017 of
Municipal no.1.
Ex.P-44 Katha certificate dated 13.03.2017 of
Municipal no.1.
Ex.P-45 Katha extract dated 13.03.2017 of
Municipal no.2.
Ex.P-46 Katha certificate dated 13.03.2017 of
Municipal no.2.
Ex.P-47 Death certificate of K.N. Murali.
O.S.No.2044/2017
28
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW-1 – Krupalini.G.K.
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.D-1 True copy of preliminary notification
published in Mysore Gazette dated
28.01.1960.
Ex.D-2 True copy of final notification dated
28.09.1965.
(YASHAWANTH KUMAR)
C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
(CCH-38), BENGALURU.