Mahadeva vs The Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 746 Kant

                            1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              R.S.A.NO.1238/2022 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN

1 . MAHADEVA
    S/O BOCHAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

2 . SIDDARAJU
    S/O BOCHAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

3 . BASAVANNA
    S/O BOCHAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

4 . RAJU
    S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

5 . KRISHNA
    S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

6 . SOMA
    S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

7 . PUTTAMADAMMA
    W/O LATE MAHADEVA
    AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
                             2



8 . MAHADEVASWAMY
    S/O LATE MAHADEVA
    AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

9 . BASAVAIAH
    S/O LATE THOTIMADHA
    AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

10 . MADAMMA
     W/O LATE DEVAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

11 . BOCHAIAH
     S/O DEVAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

12 . MAHESHA
     S/O LATE DEVAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

13 . NINGAIAH
     S/O LATE THOTIMADHA
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

      ALL ARE R/AT AMBEDKAR STREET
      LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE
      VARUNA HOBLI
      MYSURU TALUK - 570 028.
                                       ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE COMMISSIONER
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JLB ROAD, MYSURU-570 001.
                                     ... RESPONDENT
                                  3



     THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.02.2020
PASSED IN R.A.NO.410/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU AND ETC.

    THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 13.02.2020 passed in R.A.No.410/2018 on the file

of the I Additional District Judge, Mysuru.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the

plaintiffs/appellants before the Trial Court is that the suit

schedule property is an agricultural property which originally

belonged to the father of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs got the

same and the same was given on lease to him through

temporary saguvali chit. Subsequently Deputy Commissioner,

Mysuru under 'grow more food' scheme granted land to 22

people belongng to Schedule Caste in Sy.No.28. Out of which 2

acres was allotted to each person in the aforesaid survey

number situated at Lalithadripuram village, Varuna hobli, Mysuru

taluk and the suit schedule property also assigned the survey

number as 28/46. In the meanwhile, the defendant acquired the

entire suit schedule property i.e., 2 acres for the formation of

layout and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/-

per acre. It is the contention that the plaintiffs are illiterate and

innocent persons. The defendant despite acquiring 2 acres of

land, only paid compensation to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas

and not paid the compensation to the remaining extent and

hence, they have approached the civil court seeking the relief of

declaration and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendant

to pay the compensation for the remaining extent of the land.

The Trial Court framed the preliminary issue with regard to the

maintainability of the suit and dismissed the suit in coming to

the conclusion that the suit cannot maintain in the nature of

declaration when the property was already acquired. That order

has been challenged before the First Appellate Court in

R.A.No.410/2018. The First Appellate Court also on re-

appreciation of material available on record and grounds urged

in the appeal as well as reasoning given by the Trial Court,

dismissed the appeal in coming to the conclusion that the

plaintiffs cannot file a suit for declaration when the property was

already acquired and the civil court has no jurisdiction to

entertain the suit in respect of the land already acquired as per

the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the present

appeal is filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed

an error and failed to take the fact that though property was

acquired to the extent of 2 acres, only the compensation was

paid to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas and in respect of

remaining land, no compensation was paid and substantive

question arises before the Court that whether the Courts below

are justified in rejecting the suit of the appellants on the basis of

the statement made by the respondents without looking into the

plaint averments and committed an error in rejecting the suit of

the appellants when the larger relief of declaration is sought.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and also on perusal of the material available on

record it discloses that it is the contention of the

plaintiffs/appellants that suit land was granted and the same was

standing in the name of the plaintiffs and subsequently, the

entire land which was granted was acquired by the defendant

and when the appellants did not dispute the fact that the land

was acquired, whether the compensation was paid to the entire

extent or not has to be agitated before the appropriate forum

and not invoking the jurisdiction of civil court and there is a bar

under Section 9 of CPC to entertain the suit with regard to the

acquired property and acquisition of the property is also not in

dispute and only contention that the compensation was not paid

with regard to the portion of the property and sought for the

relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to pay the

compensation and when the suit itself is not maintainable, the

Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court rightly came to

the conclusion that suit is not maintainable. However, liberty is

given to the appellants to approach the proper forum with regard

to their grievance. With this observation, the appeal is disposed

of.

6. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any,

does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed

of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN