9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the land acquired, the relief granted by the High Court in the appeal is not sustainable. Given the lack of pleadings, evidence on record, and submissions made at the time of hearing before the High Court, the judgment passed by it granting 30 per cent of the amount payable by way of compensation in respect of the ten sites in possession of the private Defendants, deserves to be set aside. The Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to receive the full amount payable in respect of acquisition of the suit property for the Metro Rail Project. Appeal dismissed. - ABHAY S. OKA And AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH , JJ. JUDGMENT AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH , J. 1. These two Appeals have been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 05.12.2014 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA Nos. 902 of 2008 and 887 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment ). While disposing of these Regular First Appeals against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2008 passed by XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions (CCH No. 27) Judge at Bengaluru in O.S No. 5634 of 1980, by the common impugned order, the High Court while upholding the Trial Court judgment decreeing the suit and holding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, all jodidars retained interests corresponding to their respective shares. Among them was one Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma, who held 1/7th share in the village. Pursuant to an application submitted by her to the competent authority, Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma was granted occupancy rights for 1 acre and 3 guntas of land in Sy No. 132/2, vide order dated 09.12.1969. Although the initial mutation was sanctioned in her name, the Tehsildar, following an on-site inspection, adjusted the records to reflect the actual area in her possession. As a result, a revised mutation order dated 20.05.1972 was passed, updating the record to 1 acre and 12 guntas in Sy No. 132/2 in her name. The land was subsequently renumbered as Sy No. 305/2, with a measurement of 1 acre and 12 guntas. The Appellant/Plaintiff, Lakshmesh M. acquired this land (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ) from Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma through a registered sale deed dated 10.06. 1975. 5. After the Appellant/Plaintiff acquired the suit property, the Defendant No. 1, REMCO Industrial Workers House Building Cooperative Society Limited (Respondent 14 in Civil Appeal No. 9731 of 2024 and Respondent 2 in Civil Appeal No. 973 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by this Court was decreed on 31.03.2008, and the Appellant/Plaintiff was declared as the owner of the scheduled property to the extent of 1 acre and 3 guntas in Sy No.305/2. He was also held entitled to get possession of the same. The Respondents/Defendants preferred appeals against this judgment and decree before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The Defendant No.1- Society preferred RFA No.882 of 2008, Defendant No.20 preferred RFA No.887 of 2008 and Defendants Nos.9, 10(a), 11(a), 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23 and 24 preferred RFA No.902/2008. 10. The High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2014 upheld the judgment passed by the Trial Court in OS No.5634 of 1980 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Defendant No.1-Society, i.e. RFA No.882/2008. However, RFA No.887 of 2008 preferred by Defendant No.20 was allowed. The High Court set aside the judgment and decree so far as it pertained to the land allotted to Defendant No.20, declaring that the site allotted to Defendant No.20 was unrelated to the scheduled suit property. 11. Regarding RFA No.902 of 2008, the High Court determined that Defendants Nos. 9, 10(a), 11(a), 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23, and 24 (hereinafter r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rivate Defendants cannot be held entitled to receive compensation payable in respect of the sites built on the suit property. Once it has been held that the Appellant/Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property merely because these private Defendants are in possession of the sites built on the scheduled property, they would not be entitled to any compensation for the land acquired for the Metro Rail Project. 16. Another expostulation which has been put forward by the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant/Plaintiff is that the compensation was neither asserted nor claimed by these private Defendants at any stage and, in fact, the same was not even argued what to say of taking a ground in the appeal which has been preferred by the said private Defendants before the High Court. Under such circumstances, a portion of the compensation made payable for the acquisition of the suit property of which the Appellant/Plaintiff is the absolute owner, is unacceptable and unsustainable in law. 17. On the other hand, the learned Senior Advocate for the private Defendants submits that the factum of possession and construction on the suit property by the private Defendants is not disputed. Once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
