Karnataka High Court
The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike vs Sri N K Neelakantachar on 26 June, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21947
RFA No. 571 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 571 OF 2008 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N. R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B V MURALIDHAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI N K NEELAKANTACHAR
S/O LATE SRI. KALASACHAR
MAJOR, NO. 140, MARENAHALLY
J.P.NAGAR, 1ST PHASE
BANGALORE-560 078
Digitally signed
by
DHANALAKSHMI 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MURTHY REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
Location: High REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
Court of
Karnataka M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K S MALLIKARJUNAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (ABSENT)
SMT. H.R. ANITHA, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21947
RFA No. 571 of 2008
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF
CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 21.1.08
PASSED IN OS NO. 4614/99 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL.
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 10),
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by defendant No.3 challenging the
judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008, passed by IX
Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.
4614/1999, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff is
decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that that the land
bearing Sy.No.18 situated at Marenahally Village,
Bangalore measuring 1 acre 34 guntas was proposed to be
acquired by the Government for formation of Sarakki
Layout. Later, the Government has de-notified the same
for the purpose of allotment of sites to unauthorized
NC: 2023:KHC:21947
RFA No. 571 of 2008
constructions made by the parties. Accordingly, the layout
was formed and the Block Development Officer allotted
sites to 79 beneficiaries including the plaintiff. The Block
Development Officer has issued Hakku patra to the
plaintiff. The same is produced as Ex.P1. It is the further
case of the plaintiff that they have also obtained necessary
plain sanction from competent authority and constructed a
residential house and khatha is also changed in their
name. They are in possession of the suit schedule
property. On 17.10.1998 and 16.06.1999, Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike authorities along with their men
attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property.
Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction.
remained unrepresented and have been placed exparte.
Defendant No.3 has filed written statement contending
that the suit schedule property is a Government land. The
Block Development Officer has no authority to grant the
NC: 2023:KHC:21947
RFA No. 571 of 2008
site in favour of the beneficiaries, much less in favour of
the plaintiff. The Bangalore Development Authority has
acquired this property for formation of a layout and they
have reserved this property for civic amenity purpose and
hence sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial
Court framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff his lawful possession of
the suit schedule property on the date of
suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves the
alleged interference by the defendant?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
permanent injunction as sought for?
6. To prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff has
examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 13 documents.
Defendant No.3 has examined one witness Mohanakrishna
as DW-1 and no documents were marked. On
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court has answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative
NC: 2023:KHC:21947
RFA No. 571 of 2008
and granted injunction. Being aggrieved by the same,
defendant No.3 has filed this appeal.
7. Sri. B. V. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant No.3 has contended that the plaintiff
has contended that the Block Development Officer has
issued hakku patra as per Ex.P1. In fact, granting of a
site in favour of the plaintiff has been done by the Block
Development Officer without authority of law. Therefore,
proceedings has been initiated by the Government after
giving notice to all the beneficiaries, including the plaintiff.
The allotment of hakku patra in respect of the suit
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff has been
cancelled by the Government vide order dated
27.04.2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff
has filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P.No.24595/2002 and same has been dismissed as
withdrawn. Now, the trial Court has granted injunction
only on the basis of Ex.P1. Since the writ petition filed by
NC: 2023:KHC:21947
RFA No. 571 of 2008
the plaintiff has been withdrawn, he is not entitled for
injunction. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
8. None appeared for respondent No.1/plaintiff.
9. Heard learned counsel for appellant/defendant
No.3 and learned HCGP for respondents 2 & 3.
10. The case of the plaintiff is that the Government
has formed sites in Sy.No.18 of Marenahally Village,
Bangalore and allotted sites to 79 beneficiaries. The
Hakku patras issued by the Block Development Officer in
favour of the plaintiff has been produced as Ex.P1. The
trial Court, relying on the documents produced by the
plaintiff, which is not denied by the State Government, has
accepted the same and given a finding that the plaintiff is
in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. In fact,
the defendant No.3/appellant has produced the order
passed by the State Government on 27.04.2002, whereby
the order of allotment made by the Block Development
Officer in favour of the beneficiaries, including the plaintiff,
NC: 2023:KHC:21947
RFA No. 571 of 2008
has been cancelled. Even though that order was
challenged by the plaintiff before this Court in
W.P.No.24595/2002, later he has withdrawn the same
vide order dated 22.07.2008. Hence, the order dated
27.04.2002, passed by the State Government has attained
finality. Therefore, the finding the trial Court that the
plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule
property, is contrary to the material available on record.
That part of the finding is unsustainable. Under these
circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
11. In view of the above reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The judgment and decree dated
21.01.2008, passed by IX Additional City Civil
Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.4614/1999, is set
aside.
Liberty is reserved to the
appellant/defendant No.3 to evict the
NC: 2023:KHC:21947
RFA No. 571 of 2008
respondent No.1/plaintiff from the suit schedule
property, after following due process of law.
SD/-
JUDGE
RD
