9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant against the same. The factual backdrop in which the suits and the appeals mentioned above came to be filed may be summarised as under: 3. M. Venkatesh-Appellant in SLP (C) No. 38601 of 2012 claimed ownership over the suit schedule property by inheritance from his grandfather Munishamappa who is said to have purchased the same under a registered sale-deed dated 7th July, 1954. In connected SLP (C) No. 12016 of 2013 Prabhaudas Patel also claimed to be the owner of suit schedule property relevant to his suit on the basis of purchase of the said property from its previous owner. The aforementioned two parcels of land together with a larger extent in the vicinity were acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' For short) for the formation of Hosur Road, Sarjapur Layout in terms of a preliminary notification dated 17th July, 1984 and a final notification dated 28th November, 1986 published on 25th December, 1986, after notices to the Khatedars and the persons interested, some of whom had filed their claims before the competent authority. Determination of amount of compensation payable to the landowners having been approved by the competent authority on 21st Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Plaintiffs prove their alleged lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, as on the date of the suit? (3) Whether the Plaintiffs further prove the alleged illegal interferences and obstructions by the Defendant? (4) Whether the Defendant proves that, the suit schedule properties is duly acquired by the Defendant, in accordance with law and as such, the same have stood vested with the Defendant, free from all the encumbrances? (5) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the suit relief of declaration and injunction, against the Defendant? (6) What Order or Decree? 6. The Trial Court answered issue Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in the affirmative while issue No. 4 was answered in the negative. The suits were on those findings decreed. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, BDA filed RFA Nos. 911, 912, 914, 915 and 916 of 2002 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. A Single Judge of the High Court, as noticed earlier, has allowed RFA Nos. 912, 914, 915 and 916 of 2002 but dismissed RAF No. 911 of 2002. The High Court took the view that Respondents in RFA No. 911 of 2002 who happened to be Respondents in SLP No. 12016 of 2013 were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars by the village panchayat concerned. It was further alleged that property tax was also being assessed and levied by the competent authority from time to time and is being paid by them. It was alleged that the suit properties were being used for carrying on business in different names and style. The local authorities had also issued no objection certificates for grant of electricity supply connections in their favour and that they were paying electricity charges as and when demanded. The Appellants claim to have set up their business which was their source of livelihood. Whatever may be the rights vested in the BDA pursuant to the notifications and the award, the BDA was not entitled to disturb the peaceful occupation of the landowners according to the averments in the plaint. The Plaintiffs, on that basis claimed the relief of permanent injunction restraining the BDA and its officials from disturbing their possession over the suit schedule properties. The Plaintiffs, it is noteworthy, claimed ignorance about the acquisition proceedings and alleged that they had not received any compensation and that they had continued to be in occupation as owners to the knowledge of the BDA and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tood extinguished. It is needless to say that such adverse possession for 12 years should be subsequent to the date of vesting of land in BDA. The person claiming such title by adverse possession cannot call in aid any possession on his part or his predecessor for any period prior to date of vesting of land in BDA, to establish adverse possession, or possession during the tendency of any litigation regarding the property, cannot be considered as possession adverse to BDA. 12. Once the High Court recorded a finding that the property was vacant as on the date of the filing of the suit there was no question of the Plaintiffs claiming settled possession of the said property assuming the view taken in John B. James case (supra) was otherwise legally sound since the so called settled possession of the Appellants in RFA No. 911 of 2002 stood vacated from the suit schedule property, no prayer for injunction as set out in the petition filed by the Appellants in those appeals could help them for an injunction issues only to protect what is in lawful possession of the Plaintiffs. Injunction could not be claimed when Plaintiffs stand dispossessed from the suit property prior to the filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Under Section 6, therefore, remain valid. There is no other provision under the Act to have the acquired land divested, unless, as stated earlier, notification Under Section 48(1) was published and the possession is surrendered pursuant thereto. That apart, since M/s. Kalra Properties, Respondent had purchased the land after the notification Under Section 4(1) was published, its sale is void against the State and it acquired no right, title or interest in the land. Consequently, it is settled law that it cannot challenge the validity of the notification or the regularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration Under Section 6 was published. 14. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2677; Mahavir and Anr. v. Rural Institute, Amravati and Anr., (1995) 5 SCC 335; Gian Chand v. Gopala and Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 528; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177 and Tika Ram v. State of U.P., (2009) 10 SCC 689. More importantly, as on the date of the suit, the Respondents had not completed 12 years in possession of the suit property so as to entitle them to claim adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma, (1996) 8 SCC 128). 16. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Saroop Singh v. Banto, (2005) 8 SCC 330, where this Court emphasised the importance of animus possidendi and observed: 29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the Plaintiff but commences from the date the Defendant's possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak, (2004) 3 SCC 376). 30. Animus possidendi" is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mained oblivious of the principle enunciated in the decisions to which we have referred herein above. All that the High Court has found in favour of the Plaintiffs is that their possession is established. That, however, does not conclude the controversy. The question is not just whether the Plaintiffs were in possession, but whether they had by being in adverse possession for the statutory period of 12 years perfected their title. That question has neither been adverted to nor answered in the judgment impugned in this appeal. Such being the case the High Court, in our opinion, erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant-BDA. The fact that the Plaintiffs had not and could not possibly establish their adverse possession over the suit property should have resulted in dismissal of the suit for an unauthorised occupant had no right to claim relief that would perpetuate his illegal and unauthorised occupation of property that stood vested in the BDA. In the result: (i) Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 38601 of 2012 and SLP (C) Nos. 12013-12015 of 2013 fail and are, hereby, dismissed. (ii) Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12016 of 2013 succeeds and is, hereby, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
