9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and possession of the disputed property. 2. Validity of the acquisition proceedings. 3. Maintainability of the civil suit challenging acquisition proceedings. Summary: Ownership and Possession of the Disputed Property: The respondent filed Original Suit No. 5371 of 1989 seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to restrain them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff claimed ownership through a registered sale deed dated 17.6.1985 and stated that the property was not covered by any acquisition proceedings. The BDA contested, claiming the plaintiff was not the owner and that the land had been acquired by issuing preliminary and final notifications, with possession taken over on 22.6.1988. The trial court initially decreed in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court later remanded the suit for fresh decision, allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include a claim for possession. Validity of the Acquisition Proceedings: The High Court, upon appeal, held that the acquisition proceedings were invalid as the names of the plaintiffs were not notified, thus not binding upon the owners. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning erroneous, noting that the plaintiffs purchased the property after the notification u/s 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Therefore, there was no requirement to serve notice upon them as their names would not have appeared in the assessment list or land revenue register at the relevant time. Maintainability of the Civil Suit Challenging Acquisition Proceedings: The Supreme Court emphasized that the civil court cannot question the validity of acquisition proceedings, as established in precedents like State of Bihar vs. Dhirendra Kumar and Laxmi Chand vs. Gram Panchayat, Kararia. The Act is a complete code in itself, and challenges to the validity of notifications should be addressed through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, not civil suits. The High Court's distinction that the plaintiffs were not covered by the notification was deemed incorrect since the land in question was indeed covered by the notification. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments and decrees, and affirmed the trial court's decrees dismissing the suits. The civil court's jurisdiction to challenge the acquisition proceedings was found to be barred, and the proper recourse for the plaintiffs was through writ petitions. No order as to costs was made.
|
