Dakshina Moorthy and Dharman vs A. Venkateswarappa and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. The appellants claim that the suit property consisting a dilapidated house, was purchased in the year 1962 by their father and that since it was uninhabitable, it remained unoccupied. It is much later after the father of the plaintiffs died, the plaintiffs inherited the property and they were in possession of the same. It transpires that the said site which was termed as a revenue site, was acquired along with the entire survey number from which the site had been culled out, by the State under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''the BDA Act'', for brevity). The acquisition included several other such sites. However, under a scheme, it was proposed to reconvey the revenue sites in favour of the holders thereof, who were in possession. The plaintiffs who were entitled to such reconveyance, had made an application. However, it transpires that the defendants had also made an application falsely claiming to be in possession of the very suit site and it transpires that the Bangalore Development Authority in turn, has allotted a portion of the suit property in favour of Defendant No. 1, while other portions have been forcibly occupied by Defendants 2 and 3. It is in this background that the plaintiff had approached the Trial Court for reliefs.

The suit was contested and has been dismissed. The Trial Court has proceeded on the basis of the identities of the properties not being clear and that the plaintiffs have not made out a case, in the face of the circumstance that Defendants 1 and 3 had remained ex parte. However, the basic issue appears to have been overlooked by the court below and even the learned counsel for the appellants does not seek to address the same. The primary contention is that the suit property was a site formed in agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 152/6 of Kathamarenahalli, Bangalore District, which was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act. This is not denied and it is an admitted fact that several persons who were in occupation of the lands had sought reconveyance, even as the plaintiff had. Therefore, it would follow that the land had vested in the State and it is at the discretion of the BDA that such reconveyance if any has been made. If once the land stands vested in the State, it is the settled legal position, in a catena of decisions, a recent one of which is in The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and Another, that, if the land is subject matter of acquisition proceedings, the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to address the case at all and it is only the High Court in its writ jurisdiction which may consider any such claim in respect of acquired land. Since basically it is the appellants'' case that notwithstanding the acquisition of the suit property, the same having been conveyed in favour of one of the defendants, results in the appellants being deprived of the land. Though the reconveyance is stated to be made only in favour of Defendant No. 1, since the other defendants are said to be trespassers, the fact remains that even that land under the occupation of Defendants 2 and 3 is land which has been acquired and has vested in the State. Therefore, it is open for the appellants to seek appropriate reliefs in writ jurisdiction and it cannot be the subject matter of a civil suit and hence, the appeal is rejected.