Malathi Prakash vs The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court.

The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

The case of the plaintiff was as follows:

The plaintiff was claiming as the absolute owner of the property described in the suit as property bearing No. 38, II Block, III Stage, West of Chord Road, Bangalore - 560 079, measuring about 50 feet by 30 feet. The same was said to have been purchased from one B.S. Krishnamurthy, under a registered Sale deed dated 8.8.1986. The second defendant is said to be the owner of site bearing No. 68 on the western side of the suit property. The first defendant was the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

It was the plaintiff''s case that the BDA, which had acquired lands in the vicinity and in respect of properties which were in occupation of persons, in revenue pockets and in order to save their properties from the rigour of acquisition, wherever it could be reconciled by reconveying a similar extent of land, if it did not affect the larger designs of the BDA in utilizing the land acquired, had formulated a reconveyance Scheme and had reconveyed sites. It was the grievance of the plaintiff that the BDA had reconveyed the suit property only to the extent of 38'' x 30'', when the vendor of the plaintiff was holding a much larger extent of land originally and whereas the second defendant, who was holding land only to the extent of 50'' x 30'', had been reconveyed a total extent of 61''+ 64/2'' and 29''+28/2''. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the excess land granted in favour of the second defendant was actually a portion of the site purchased by the plaintiff, which ought to have been reconveyed to her, when the intention in reconveyance is to put the owner of the land in possession of the extent held earlier. It was sought to be established that the plaintiff''s vendor had staked a claim to such reconveyance and the BDA had even processed the claim and had collected an advance amount in respect of such proposed reconveyance.

The defendant No. 2 had denied the suit claim and had sought to assert that the reconveyance made in her favour was in accordance with law. It is stated that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property when her vendor''s application was pending consideration and when there was no reconveyance of the extent shown to have been purchased under her sale deed and hence the same is misleading and fraudulent.

The first defendant - BDA has admitted that the vendor of the plaintiff had staked a claim to reconveyance and that the same could not be finally processed as there was a ban on reconveyance of revenue land. However, in so far as the second defendant is concerned, since she had obtained directions from this court on its writ side to consider her application for reconveyance, the same had been complied with and the land now under her occupation was reconveyed under a lease cum sale agreement. In so far as the plaintiff''s representation to the effect that the dimension of the property so reconveyed being incorrect, the BDA is said to have taken steps to rectify the same and was pending consideration, when the present suit was filed and no further steps were taken, the BDA under took to abide by any directions that would be issued by the court.

On the basis of the pleadings the court below had framed the following issues:

"1. When the plaintiff is entitled for the reconveyance or reallotment of the suit schedule property?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as sought for?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mandatory injunction as sought for against the 1st defendant?

Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property?

Whether there is interference by the defendants?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the perpetual injunction sought for?

Whether the suit is bad for want of a notice under S. 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act?"

The trial court has expressed its inability to grant the reliefs as prayed for, especially in directing a statutory body to carry out its functions, especially when the same involves the exercise of its discretion. The civil court has thus answered issues 1 and 2 partly in the affirmative and has proceeded to affirm the entitlement of the plaintiff to the actual extent of land that was admittedly in her possession.

It is in this background that the appeal is filed.

As rightly pointed out by the trial court, the plaintiff has failed to take cue from the conduct of the second defendant, who had obtained appropriate relief, may be a bonus, by approaching the writ court and obtaining a direction to the BDA to reconvey land. It is hence unfortunate that the appellant who, ought to have pursued the identical route - has, apparently on ill legal advise, pursued the present proceedings. Having regard to the admitted position by the BDA that the claim of the vendor of the plaintiff was pending consideration even during the pendency of the suit- it would be for the plaintiff to explore the possibility of salvaging the situation even as on date, in initiating appropriate proceedings. The delay and laches can certainly be attributed to these ill advised proceedings.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of, without prejudice to the claim of the plaintiff to be worked out in appropriate proceedings.