The Deputy Inspector General vs M.Leela
2022 Latest Caselaw 2877 Kant

                            1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.385 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
                                     ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.KUMAR M.N., ADV.)

AND:

1.     M.LEELA,
       W/O LATE RUKMANDHA REDDY,
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

2.     R.NEETHA,
       D/O LATE RUKMANDHA REDDY,
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.12,
       4TH SHOP STREET,
       TATA SILK FARM,
       BASAVANAGUDI,
       BENGALURU - 560 004.

3.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
                               2
      THE GOVERNMENT,
      REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
      M.S.BUILDING,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

4.    SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
      BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SHAKER SHETTY, ADV., FOR R1 AND R2;
    SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., ADV., FOR R3 AND R4)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
05.12.2015 PASSED IN RA NO.214/2003 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.06.2003 PASSED IN OS NO.145/97 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. II CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN.) BENGALURU (R)
DISTRICT, BENGALURU.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

1. The counsel for the appellant has filed an affidavit, in

which, it is stated that the suit itself does not survive for

consideration and as a consequence, this second appeal

has been rendered infructuous.

2. In the affidavit, it has been stated as follows:

"2. I state that, Government of Karnataka allotted 253 acres of land in Sy.No.55 of Taralu Village, Uttaralli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, to appellant for Rifle Firing Range vide GO No.RD 121 LGB 94 dated 05/07/1994. Subsequently, the said Order was partially modified vide GO No.RD 198 LGB 2000 Bengaluru dated 17/12/2008 reducing the extent of land to 220 acres in said survey number.

3. I state that, the respondent filed original suit before the Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bengaluru Rural District numbered as O.S.No.145/1997 praying for declaration that respondent is a absolute owner of the suit schedule property to the extent of 13 Acres and for perpetual injunction restraining appellants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for other relief. The Hon'ble Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 02/06/2003 decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by the said decree, appellants preferred Regular Appeal

before the Hon'ble Second Additional Senior Civil Judge Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru in R.A.No.214/2003 praying for setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 02/06/2003 passed in O.S.No.145/1997 by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bengaluru Rural District. The Hon'ble First Appellate Court dismissed the R.A. vide Order dated 05/12/2006. Aggrieved by the said Order appellants preferred Regular Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Court in R.S.A.No.648/2007. This Hon'ble Court vide Order dated 12/12/2014 allowed the appeal, set aside the Judgment and decree dated 05/12/2006 passed by II Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Bengaluru Rural District and remitted the matter to the said Court for fresh disposal with a direction to afford an opportunity to both parties to lead additional evidence, if any, in respect of documents produced and to dispose of the matter. Thereafter, the First Appellate Court vide Order dated 05/12/2015 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said Order appellants have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal.

4. I state that, P.Srinivasa Reddy son of Pilla Reddy and brother of Mr.P.Rukmandha Reddy who is respondent in the present Regular Second Appeal had also filed O.S.No.211/1995 before the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bengaluru Rural District praying for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of his share of 14 acres land forming part of Sy.No.55 of Taralu forms part of the land allotted to appellants in the said Sy.No. measuring 253 Acres. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 01/09/2005. Thereafter, he preferred R.F.A. before the Hon'ble Court in R.F.A. No.1382/2005. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 29/06/2007 allowed the Regular First Appeal. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellants preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No.21393-94/2013.

5. I state that, during the pendency of this appeal, there are certain factual aspects that have been changed. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13/03/2019 directed the Government of Karnataka as follows:

".... Having regard to the rival submissions, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the State Government to file Affidavit in these proceedings clarifying the factual position. Let the affidavit be filed within a period of 04 weeks form today". A copy of the said Order is annexed hereto as Annexure -1.

6. In the meanwhile, the Government of Karnataka identified the land measuring 220 Acres forming part of Sy.No.55 of Taralu allotted to appellants and affected Survey Phodi and Durasti and assigned a new Sy.No.190. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka filed an affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said SLP. A copy of the said affidavit is annexed hereto as Annexure-2. The relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit are extracted hereunder:

"Para 6. I respectfully submit that on learning that before conducting phodi and durusti work in respect of 14 acres of land claimed by 1st Respondent Srinivasa Reddy, the

entire extent of 52 Acres claimed by his father Pilla Reddy. A ought to have been identified and phodi and durusti work should have completed. It is submitted without identifying the land of Pilla Reddy.

A to and extent of 52 Acres, conducting phodi and durusti work only respect of only 14 acres claimed by 1st Respondent Srinivasa Reddy was erroneous.

Under the circumstances, a suo moto appeal was filed before the joint Director of Land Records.

After hearing all the parties concerned including 1st Respondent Srinivasa Reddy the Joint Director of Land Records was pleased to set aside the phodi and durusti work in respect of 14 acres of land claimed by the 1st Respondent - Srinivasa Reddy as well as the assignment of New Sy.No.190 was also cancelled vide order dated 19/10/2011 in JISA/BHU UI/APPEAL No.41/2011-

12.

Para 7. I respectfully submitted that in pursuance of Extra ordinary Gazette Notification dated 01/06/2009 granting 220 Acres to Central Reserve Police Force, as well as the official Memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District dated 06/03-2017 for conducting phodi and durusti of the land on the application made by the Central Reserve Police Force to conduct phodi and durusti work in respect of their land measuring 220 acres, a survey was conducted after issuing notices to all the neighbouring occupants of the land and in their presence the land granted to Central Reserve police Force was survey and boundary marks were fixed and thereby phodi and durusti in respect of 220 acres were made and new Sy.No.190 was given. At the time of measurement and phodi, durusti work the entire extent of land

measuring 220 was vacant and none of the portions were under cultivation or in occupation, possession and enjoyment of any persons including the legal representative of 1st Respondent- Srinivasa Reddy.

Para 8. I respectfully submit after going through the survey of land records and mahazar and sketch prepared by the Survey Department, I state that the land claimed by the 1st Respondent Srinivas Reddy to the extent of 14 acres, is not included in the land measuring 220 Acres which is in possession and enjoyment of Central Reserve Police Force as per the Government Grant."

7. I state that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 20/07/2021 disposed of the SLP (Civil) No.21393-94/2013 filed by appellants, after taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the Government of Karnataka. A copy of the said order is

annexed hereto as Annexure -3. The relevant portion of the Order is extracted hereunder:

"Para 13. From the material which has been placed on the record and the submissions of the learned counsel, it has emerged before the Court that:

(i) In modification of the original grant of land to the CRPF which admeasured 253 acres, a fresh grant of land admeasuring 220 acres comprised in Survey No.55 has been made by the State Government of Karnataka to the CRPF on 17 December 2008;

(ii) The first respondent executed the decree passed in the First Appeal by the High Court of Karnataka and pursuant to a warrant of possession, possession of the land forming the subject matter of the decree was handed over to the first respondent;

  (iii)      The        land        which    has     been
  allotted       to     the        petitioner   on     17

December 2008 is vacant and free of all

encumbrance and does not include the suit property."

8. I state that, the issues arose between the respondent in the present appeal as well as his brother who is respondent in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.21393-94/2013 as the visible boundaries of land allotted to appellant are fixed and new Sy.No.190 has been assigned to the land, the respondent and his family members alleged claim for land in survey number 55 of Taralu, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 52 acres, do not form part of new Sy.No.190 of Taralu, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, assigned for the land measuring 220 acres allotted to appellant, forming part of old Sy.No.55 of Taralu, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Hence, the issues raised by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit do not survive for consideration. On the other hand rendered infructuous.

9. I state that, in view of the same, the appellant most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dispose of the

Regular Second Appeal, in the interest of Justice."

3. Accepting the said affidavit, this regular second

appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous.

4. In view of disposal of the main appeal, the pending

applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GH