Karnataka High Court
Smt Mahadevamma vs The Land Acquisition Officer on 5 March, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
RFA No. 1274 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1274 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MAHADEVAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATARANGANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
BADANAGUPPE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571 313.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
Digitally signed
by SHARADA KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
VANI B K R S ROAD, MYSURU- 571 202.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI. MAHADEVAMMA,
KARNATAKA D/O MUDDUMADAIAH,
W/O NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O MASAGAPURA VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK-571 313.
3. SMT. LAKSHMI BAI,
W/O LATE APPAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
RFA No. 1274 of 2020
4. SMT. BAVANI SHANKAR RAO,
S/O LATE APPAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
5. SHIVAKUMAR RAO,
S/O LATE APPAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE
RESIDENTS OF WARD NO.16,
RAILWAY EXTENSION,
CHAMARAJNAGAR CITY - 571 313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.ASHOK KUMAR M C., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2019
PASSED IN O.S.NO.83/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJNAGAR, DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
This Appeal by the first Defendant seeks to lay a
challenge to the Judgement & Decree dated 21.10.2019
entered by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Chamarajanagar,
whereby the suit of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 for Declaration
& Injunction has been decreed. After service of notice, the
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
private Defendants entered appearance and filed Written
Statement resisting the suit.
II. FACTS IN BRIEF:
(1) One Mr.Appaji Rao had bought the suit property
vide registered sale deed dated 31.12.2005 from
Mr.Venkataranganayaka i.e., the husband of the appellant-
Smt.Mahadevamma herein. The change of entries in the
property records were not effected pursuant to this sale
deed. Taking undue advantage of the same, the appellant
herein got the entries mutated in her name after the
demise of said Appaji Rao who died on 29.03.2007.
(2) The suit land along with other came to be listed
for acquisition u/s 28 of the KIAD Act, 1966 vide
Notification dated 22.05.2014 (Ex.P-2). This Notification
mentioned name of the appellant herein and subsequently,
the acquisition process was accomplished specifying the
compensation amount. On coming to know of this, the
respondent-plaintiffs filed the subject suit for declaration
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
of title and a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from receiving the compensation amount.
(3) On the basis of pleadings, the learned Trial
Judge framed three principal issues as under:
"1. Whether the plaintiff prove that the
plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in
possession of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
interference of the 1st defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the
relief claimed?"
From the side of plaintiffs, three persons were examined
i.e., PW1-Mr.Shivkumar, PW2-Mr.Bhavanishankar Rao &
PW3-Mr.Kalanaika. As many as 10 documents came to be
marked as Exs.P-1 to P-10. They amongst other, included
original sale deed dated 31.12.2005, certified copy of sale
deed dated 13.09.1977, genealogical tree and death
certificate. From the side of defendants, the appellant was
examined as DW1 and one Smt.Anupama was examined
as DW2. In their evidence, as many as 13 documents
came to be marked as per Exs. D1 to D13. They inter alia
included patta book, tax paid receipts, boundary
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
certificate, property atlas, encumbrance certificate and
RTC.
(4) In the light of pleadings of the parties and
evidentiary material on record, learned Judge of the court
below has decreed the suit in favour of Respondent-
Plaintiffs and the same is put in challenge at our hands.
III. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Appeal Papers/Records, we decline
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) The first submission of learned counsel for the
Appellant that the subject matter of suit was undervalued
and that inadequate court fee was paid, is difficult to
countenance. Such a plea has been taken up in the
Written Statement, is true. However, the subject property
being an agricultural land, the suit has been duly valued
and the court fee has been paid u/s.24(b) of the
Karnataka Suits Valuation & Court Fees Act, 1958. The
Plaint was accompanied by a Valuation Slip. To
substantiate the contention to the contrary, no evidentiary
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
material has been placed on record by the Defendants.
Mere plea sans supportive evidence does not come to the
aid of defendants.
(b) The second submission of learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that the suit was barred by
limitation does not merit consideration in the absence of
any plea in that regard in the Written Statement. Not
even a whisper is made in this regard. The submission
that, from the admitted facts, suit is barred by limitation
has to fail in the absence of any such admission being
demonstrated from the pleadings or the evidentiary
material that would vouch contention of the kind. It
hardly needs to be stated that more often than not, the
question of limitation is mixed bag of law & facts. No
effort is made by the defendants to have such an issue
raised before the court below. When suit has been filed on
19.07.2014, the choate cause of action arises on the
issuance of acquisition Notification dated 22.05.2014. It
is only when the said Notification mentioned name of the
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
Defendants, the Plaintiffs had rightly approached the court
below.
(c) There is a specific finding recorded by the Court
below as to the Defendants continuing in the possession
of subject property pursuant to the sale deed of 2005, as
the LRs of deceased buyer. The registered sale deed
coming from the proper custody has to be presumed to be
valid vide Apex Court decision in MANIK MAJUMDER vs.
DIPAK KUMAR SAHA, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 37, wherein
Para 88 reads as under:
"...when a document has been duly
registered, there is a presumption of
correctness and it can be rebutted only by
strong evidence to the contrary..."
No evidence to rebut such a presumption has been led
from the Defendants' side, to say the least.
(d) The vehement submission of learned counsel for
the Appellant that the sale deed is a fabricated document,
is difficult to countenance, and reasons for this are not far
to seek: Admittedly, no proceedings have been taken up
by the Defendants for voiding the said conveyance; it is a
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
registered document and the brother of the seller happens
to be a witness to the same. No explanation is offered as
to why he should be disbelieved. Secondly, the plea as to
fabrication of document has not been taken up with full
material particulars as prescribed under Order VI Rule 4 of
CPC, 1908. It has been a settled position of law that a
plea of fraud or fabrication has to be meticulously taken
up with full particulars and that a half hearted effort in this
regard shall not be entertained, vide
RANGANAYAKAMMA vs. K.S.PRAKASH, AIR 2005 KAR
426 DB. The plea taken up in the Written Statement is
militantly bereft of any such particulars. Who fabricated
the subject document in collusion with whom, when &
where such fabrication happened, are all lacking. The
Apex Court in AFSAR SHAIK vs. SOLEMAN, AIR 1976 SC
163 has held that the provisions of Order VI Rule 4 r/w
Rule 2 are mandatory.
(e) The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties,
does not merit consideration in the absence of a plea to
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
that effect in the Written Statement. Who is the necessary
party that has been left out from the array, has not been
stated either in the Written Statement or in the evidence
or in the Appeal Memo. Such a contention cannot be
taken up in the Appeal without any basis. It hardly needs
to be stated that the Apex Court has discussed similar
aspect of the matter in RAZIA BEGUM vs. SAHEBZADI
ANWAR BEGUM, AIR 1958 SC 886 and for invocation of
this ratio, no effort has been made at the foundational
level.
(f) The last submission made on behalf of the
Appellant that the entries in the Revenue Records were
not mutated nearly for nine years and therefore, the sale
deed should be presumed to be fabricated, is too far
fetched an argument. When a conveyance is registered,
it is the duty of Revenue Officials to make entries in terms
thereof as observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in MAHADEVAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2008
SCC OnLine Kar 65. At para 4, it is stated as under:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
"4... It is needles to say it is duty bound on the
part of the revenue authorities and the Sub-
Registrar as per S. 128(4) to invariably intimate
the fact of transfer of interest or ownership from
the first party to the second party to the
concerned revenue authorities so that
concerned revenue authorities will make the
mutation entries in the concerned register and
also proper entries in the revenue register after
following the procedure as per S. 129 of the
Land Revenue Act... It is high time to intimate
the Revenue Department and the concerned
Department to meticulously follow the
procedure as provided under S. 128 & 129 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and also it
should be made mandatory as a matter of
responsibility on the part of the Government to
save the public from the precarious situation
and also there shall be timely action by the
revenue authorities without there being any
delay on their part in making entries in the
mutation register and other registers in the
revenue office and in the
Corporation/Municipality in city limits to avoid
future complications..."
Thus, no efforts need be made by the buyer of agricultural
land when the transfer takes place by virtue of a
registered document.
(g) The above apart, a plausible explanation has
been offered from the side of Plaintiffs as to why the
entries were not mutated, the patriarch of the family
having died on 29.03.2009. It is not uncommon in rural
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9079-DB
areas that despite registered sale deeds, the entries in the
Revenue Records, continue in the name of vendor, with
mutual trust of the parties to the conveyance that seller is
the seller and buyer is the buyer, regardless of mutation
of entries. It is only after the land was notified for
acquisition, the Defendants made clandestine efforts to
knock away the compensation; it is the Plaintiffs who hold
the title to the land by virtue of registered sale deed and
therefore, it is only they are entitled to and be paid the
compensation.
In the above circumstances, this Appeal being devoid
of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed with
costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cbc/Snb
