Karnataka High Court
Sri. G. Paramasivaiah vs Smt. Sunitha on 16 January, 2025
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
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH BYRASANDRA NARASAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AMITH NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUNITHA
D/O LATE BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT No.323, 15TH CROSS
SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 080
2. SRI. D. VINAY
S/O K.S. DINESH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT No.323, 15TH CROSS
SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 080
-
2
3. KUMARI D. VIDYA
D/O K.S. DINESH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/AT No.323, 15TH CROSS
SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 080
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
-
3
8. 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.,
9. 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). VEENA VANI
D/O LATE H.N. VEERABHADRAN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT. 140, GRANDVIEW DRIVE
GLASTONBURY CT 06033 USA
16(d). 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(e). USHA R. RAMAN
D/O LATE H.N. VEERABHADRAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT.1453, MICKELSON CT
DAVENPORT FL 33896 USA
16(f). 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
-
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
JUDGMENT ON 06.01.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
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
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
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*
[ad_1]
Source link