Karnataka High Court

Sri. Y Munireddy vs State Of Karnataka on 15 November, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                            -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                                      MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                                   c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                                       MFA No.6599 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                          BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6575 OF 2024 (CPC)

                                      CONNECTED WITH

                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6584 OF 2024 (CPC)

                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6599 OF 2024 (CPC)

                   IN M.F.A.No.6575/2024

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI. Y MUNIREDDY
                         S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
Digitally signed         AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
by DEVIKA M
                         OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 R/A NO.166, 5TH CROSS
KARNATAKA                1ST MAIN ROAD
                         DODDANEKKUNDI
                         BANGALORE 560 037

                   2.    SRI HARSHA
                         S/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
                         AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

                   3.    SMT. SANDYA
                         D/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
                         AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
                           -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                   MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                    MFA No.6599 of 2024




     BOTH ARE R/AT NO.152/2
     ADJACENT SAI VAIBHAVA HOTE
     DODDEKUNDI CIRCLE
     1ST MAIN ROAD
     DODDANEKKUNDI
     BANGALORE 560 037

4.   SRI N VINAY
     S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5.   N VIKAS
     S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

     PLAINTIFFS 4 & 5 ARE R/AT NO. 4,
     KOMAL NIVAS, 1ST MAIN ROAD
     DODDANEKUNDI MAIN ROAD
     OPP TO HI CHOICE HOME NEEDS
     BANGALROE 560 037

6.   SRI Y NARAYANA
     S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO. 152/2
     NEXT TO RADHAKRISHNA CLINIC
     DODDANEKKUNDI MAIN ROAD
     BANGALORE 560 037
                                            ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHANDRA SHEKAR R, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMETN OF HOUSING
     AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     MULTISTORIED BUILDING
     AMBEDKAR VEEDI
                          -3-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                   MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                    MFA No.6599 of 2024




     BANGALORE 560 001
     REPARESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     PODIUM BLOCK
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BANGALORE - 560 001

3.   LRDE EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO OPERAT IVE
     SOCIETY LTD
     C/O LRDE, DRDO COMPLEX
     C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

4.   MRS. RUPSI CHAUHAN
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     W/O LAWTE J M CHAUHAN
     RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
     DRDO TOWNSHIP
     PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093

5.   MR. DILIP CHAUHAN
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
     S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
     RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
     DRDO TOWNSHIP
     PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093

6.   MR. SIDDHARTH CHAUHAN
     AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
     S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
     RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 306
     SAI KRUPA HEERA
     BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
                           -4-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                    MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                 c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                     MFA No.6599 of 2024




     C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093

7.   H SUNIL KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
     S/O SRI K HEMA REDDY
     RESIDING AT NO. 139/1-1
     SHARADAMMA LAYOUT
     BANGALORE 560 071
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
 SRI SHIVAPRASAD E AND SUDARSHAN B N, ADVOCATES
FOR R7)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.04.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.5
IN   O.S.NO.3008/2024    ON     THE   FILE    OF   THE   VII
ADDITIONAL    CITY   CIVIL      AND   SESSIONS      JUDGE,
BENGALURU, (CCH-19) AND ETC.


IN M.F.A.No.6584/2024

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI. Y MUNIREDDY
     S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
     OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST
     R/A NO.166, 5TH CROSS
     1ST MAIN ROAD
     DODDANEKKUNDI
     BANGALORE 560 037
                           -5-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                   MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                    MFA No.6599 of 2024




2.   SRI HARSHA
     S/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

3.   SMT. SANDYA
     D/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

     BOTH ARE R/AT NO.152/2
     ADJACENT SAI VAIBHAVA HOTE
     DODDEKUNDI CIRCLE
     1ST MAIN ROAD
     DODDANEKKUNDI
     BANGALORE 560 037

4.   SRI N VINAY
     S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5.   N VIKAS
     S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

     PLAINTIFFS 4 & 5 ARE R/AT NO. 4,
     KOMAL NIVAS, 1ST MAIN ROAD
     DODDANEKUNDI MAIN ROAD
     OPP TO HI CHOICE HOME NEEDS
     BANGALROE 560 037

6.   SRI Y NARAYANA
     S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO. 152/2
     NEXT TO RADHAKRISHNA CLINIC
     DODDANEKKUNDI MAIN ROAD
     BANGALORE 560 037
                                            ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHANDRA SHEKAR R, ADVOCATE)
                          -6-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                   MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                    MFA No.6599 of 2024




AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMETN OF HOUSING
     AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     MULTISTORIED BUILDING
     AMBEDKAR VEEDI
     BANGALORE 560 001
     REPARESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     PODIUM BLOCK
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BANGALORE - 560 001

3.   LRDE EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO OPERAT IVE
     SOCIETY LTD
     C/O LRDE, DRDO COMPLEX
     C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

4.   MRS. RUPSI CHAUHAN
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     W/O LAWTE J M CHAUHAN
     RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
     DRDO TOWNSHIP
     PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093

5.   MR. DILIP CHAUHAN
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
     S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
     RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
     DRDO TOWNSHIP
     PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093
                          -7-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                   MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                    MFA No.6599 of 2024




6.   MR. SIDDHARTH CHAUHAN
     AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
     S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
     RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 306
     SAI KRUPA HEERA
     BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
     C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093

7.   H SUNIL KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
     S/O SRI K HEMA REDDY
     RESIDING AT NO. 139/1-1
     SHARADAMMA LAYOUT
     BANGALORE 560 071
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
 SRI SHIVAPRASAD E AND SUDARSHAN B N, ADVOCATES
FOR R7)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.04.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.2
IN   O.S.NO.3008/2024   ON     THE   FILE    OF   THE   VII
ADDITIONAL    CITY   CIVIL     AND   SESSIONS      JUDGE,
BENGALURU, (CCH-19) AND ETC.



IN M.F.A.No.6599/2024

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI. Y MUNIREDDY
     S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
                           -8-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                   MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                    MFA No.6599 of 2024




     OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST
     R/A NO.166, 5TH CROSS
     1ST MAIN ROAD
     DODDANEKKUNDI
     BANGALORE 560 037

2.   SRI HARSHA
     S/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

3.   SMT. SANDYA
     D/O LATE Y RAMAKRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

     BOTH ARE R/AT NO.152/2
     ADJACENT SAI VAIBHAVA HOTE
     DODDEKUNDI CIRCLE
     1ST MAIN ROAD
     DODDANEKKUNDI
     BANGALORE 560 037

4.   SRI N VINAY
     S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

5.   N VIKAS
     S/O LATE Y NANJUNAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

     PLAINTIFFS 4 & 5 ARE R/AT NO. 4,
     KOMAL NIVAS, 1ST MAIN ROAD
     DODDANEKUNDI MAIN ROAD
     OPP TO HI CHOICE HOME NEEDS
     BANGALROE 560 037

6.   SRI Y NARAYANA
     S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
                          -9-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                   MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                    MFA No.6599 of 2024




     RESIDING AT NO. 152/2
     NEXT TO RADHAKRISHNA CLINIC
     DODDANEKKUNDI MAIN ROAD
     BANGALORE 560 037
                                          ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHANDRA SHEKAR R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMETN OF HOUSING
     AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     MULTISTORIED BUILDING
     AMBEDKAR VEEDI
     BANGALORE 560 001
     REPARESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     PODIUM BLOCK
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BANGALORE - 560 001

3.   LRDE EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO OPERAT IVE
     SOCIETY LTD
     C/O LRDE, DRDO COMPLEX
     C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

4.   MRS. RUPSI CHAUHAN
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     W/O LAWTE J M CHAUHAN
     RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
     DRDO TOWNSHIP
     PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093
                          - 10 -
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                      MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                   c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                       MFA No.6599 of 2024




5.   MR. DILIP CHAUHAN
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
     S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
     RESIDING AT NO. E-24/5
     DRDO TOWNSHIP
     PHASE-I, C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093

6.   MR. SIDDHARTH CHAUHAN
     AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
     S/O LATE J M CHAUHAN
     RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 306
     SAI KRUPA HEERA
     BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
     C V RAMAN NAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 093

7.   H SUNIL KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
     S/O SRI K HEMA REDDY
     RESIDING AT NO. 139/1-1
     SHARADAMMA LAYOUT
     BANGALORE 560 071
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
 SRI SHIVAPRASAD E AND SUDARSHAN B N, ADVOCATES
 FOR R7)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.04.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1
IN   O.S.NO.3008/2024   ON        THE   FILE    OF   THE   VII
ADDITIONAL    CITY   CIVIL     AND      SESSIONS      JUDGE,
BENGALURU, (CCH-19) AND ETC.
                              - 11 -
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:46586
                                         MFA No. 6575 of 2024
                                      c/w MFA No.6584 of 2024
                                          MFA No.6599 of 2024




     THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed challenging the order dated

04.09.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 5 in

O.S.No.3008/2024 by the VII Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the appellants

before the Trial Court is that one Yellappa Reddy who is

the father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 6 and grandfather of

plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 was the absolute owner and in lawful

possession and enjoyment of dry agricultural land bearing

Sy.No.89/2 totally measuring 1 acre 19 guntas which is

morefully described in the schedule and out of 1 acre 19

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:46586

guntas, 1 acre 13½ guntas has been acquired by

defendant No.1 and same was handed over to defendant

No.3 and defendant No.3 formed the sites and sold the

same. It is also the claim of the appellants that to the

remaining land of 5½ guntas which was notified, no award

has been passed and the plaintiffs are in possession of

entire extent of 5½ guntas of land in Sy.No.89/2 which

was subsequently phoded as Sy.No.89/3 and same is vest

with the Yellappa Reddy and his legal heirs. The said

Yellappa Reddy died in the year 1994 and consequently,

his elder son Nanjunda Reddy died on 03.05.2001 leaving

behind his legal representatives that is plaintiff Nos.4 and

5 respectively. As a result, they became the owners of 5½

guntas land, thus, defendant Nos.1 to 3 cannot claim any

right in respect of 5½ guntas of land. Thus, being the

state of affairs, defendant No.7 being a stranger, having

no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property

made an attempt to encroach upon the portion of suit

schedule 'A' property in the third week of January 2024

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:46586

and the said attempt was restrained and by that time he

was kept quiet and later on, he made an attempt to put up

the construction in the encroached portion illegally in the

middle of the 'A' schedule property without having any

rights. Hence, without any other alternative, the plaintiffs

have approached the Court seeking the relief of possession

in respect of the encroached portion, declaration,

permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Inter alia

sought for the relief of not to alienation and also not to put

the construction.

4. Defendant No.7 appeared and filed the written

statement contending that he had purchased the property

from his vendor that is site No.8 and all the documents of

site No.8 are in his name. The very contention of the

plaintiffs that defendant No.7 is making an attempt to put

up the construction is erroneous and the plaintiffs have

deliberately suppressed the fact and not approached the

Court with clear hands and obtained an exparte interim

injunction and the Trial Court after considering the defence

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:46586

which has been taken, vacated the interim order in coming

to the conclusion that plaintiffs have not made out any

prima facie case.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would

vehemently contend that there is no dispute with regard to

the retaining of property to the extent of 5½ guntas and

also specific pleading is made in the plaint itself that

defendant No.7 is making an attempt to put up

construction and also encroached the portion of the 'A'

schedule property that has been shown in 'B' schedule

property and also sought for the relief of possession. The

Trial Court having considered the grounds which have

been urged in the suit, passed an impugned order in

coming to the conclusion that Sy.No.89/2 was acquired to

the extent of 1 acre 13½ guntas and also the site No.8 is

formed in Sy.No.89/2 but fails to take note of the fact that

Sy.No.89/3 is remains with the appellants and the Trial

Court has rightly held in paragraph 26 of the impugned

order that whether the property claimed by defendant

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:46586

No.7 is situated in the acquired portion of the land or

whether it is in the un-acquired portion of the land is a

matter of fact which is to be proved only after full fledged

trial. When such conclusion arrived by the Trial Court,

ought to have granted the relief of not to alienate and not

to put up the construction. The counsel also would

vehemently contend that even if defendant No.7 proceeds

to construct the building, if the Trial Court comes to the

conclusion that 'B' schedule property comes within the

Sy.No.89/3 which has been retained by the appellants,

then defendant No.7 cannot seek any equity in future.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondents would vehemently contend that it is a specific

case of defendant No.7 that he had purchased the

property from his vendor and site No.8 is also formed in

the portion of the land which was acquired i.e., to the

extent of 1 acre 13½ guntas. In order to substantiate the

case that the site No.8 comes within the remaining portion

of 5½ guntas, nothing is placed on record except self-

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:46586

styled pleading made by the appellants. The counsel also

would vehemently contend that owners of site Nos.7 and 9

have filed suit against this defendant and same was

decreed in favour of the owners and an order has been

passed to deliver the possession of the property which was

in occupation of these appellants and the said order has

been challenged before this Court and this Court granted

stay in the respective RFAs. The learned counsel appearing

for the respondents brought to notice of this Court the

depositions in the other suits wherein categorically

admitted that his vendor had constructed the building on

his own land and not encroached upon the property of the

appellants and he has been in possession of the property.

When such statement was made in the earlier suit stating

that this respondent not in possession of the property and

his vendor is in possession of the property, now he cannot

claim the relief of injunction not to put up the construction

and the earlier admission takes away the case of the

appellants.

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC:46586

7. The learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the property

was acquired and now the dispute is with regard to the

acquisition of the property to the extent of 1 acre 13½

guntas and the appellants also not disputes the same and

said acquisition was made in favour of respondent No.3

and sites were formed and sold and site No.8 comes within

the area of 1 acre 13½ guntas and not in the remaining

extent of land which was not acquired. The counsel also

submits that with regard to the identity of the property is

concerned, the Trial Court has already made an

observation that it requires full fledged trial and hence, the

question of interference does not arise.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the respective parties and also on perusal of the material

available on record, it discloses that it is the case of the

appellants that site No.8 comes within the area of

Sy.No.89/3 which has been retained by the appellants. On

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC:46586

the other hand, the respondent submits that said site No.8

comes within the area of 1 acre 13½ guntas which was

acquired by defendant No.1 and sites are formed by

defendant No.3 and the vendor of the defendant has

delivered the possession in respect of defendant No.7. It is

also brought to notice of this Court by the respondent

counsel that in the earlier proceedings, the very appellants

have admitted that the vendor of defendant No.7 is in

exclusive possession of his property that is site No.8 and

he has not encroached any of the property of the

appellants herein. When such admission is there in the

earlier proceedings initiated by the appellants in respect of

site Nos.7 and 9, in this proceeding, the appellants cannot

contend that defendant No.7 has encroached the portion

of 'A' schedule property. No doubt, the judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court was stayed by this Court.

In view of unequivocal admission in the earlier

proceedings that vendor of respondent No.7 is in actual

possession of the property which was allotted to him, the

- 19 -

NC: 2024:KHC:46586

appellants cannot claim that site No.8 which was

purchased by defendant No.7 comes within Sy.No.89/3

and in order to substantiate the same, no material is

placed except contending that it comes within the purview

of Sy.No.89/3. Thus, the Trial Court rightly comes to the

conclusion that the matter requires full fledged trial with

regard to identification of property is concerned to know

that whether it comes in Sy.No.89/3 un-acquired area or

whether it comes within the area of 1 ace 13½ guntas

which was acquired, formed sites and sold in Sy.No.89/2.

Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial

Court in dismissing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and allowing I.A.No.5

since, the very identity of the property is in dispute.

9. The counsel for the appellants submits that in

case, if the appellants succeeds and defendant No.7 put up

construction in the property of Sy.No.89/3 which was

acquired, he cannot claim the equity and the said

submission disputed by the counsel for the respondent

stating that there is unequivocal admission given in the

- 20 -

NC: 2024:KHC:46586

earlier suit and hence, the appellants cannot sought for

such direction. Having considered the prima facie material

available on record with regard to the admission on the

part of the appellants before the other proceedings when

the suit was initiated by the owners of site Nos.7 and 9

wherein specifically admitted that the vendor of

respondent No.7 he is in exclusive possession of the

property which he had purchased, the question of

considering the submission of the appellants does not

arise. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of

the appellants' counsel to make such observation in the

order.

10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The miscellaneous first appeals are dismissed.

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as

expeditiously as possible and the observation made by this