Shivashankaraiah vs The Bangalore Development Authority and Smt. M. Jayalakshmi

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri M. Shivappa appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition and the appellant in the connected appeal. This matter was heard at length on 9.1.2013 and this court had expressed its opinion insofar as the merit of the case in the appeal in R.F.A. 713/2010. Since the learned Senior Advocate expressed that the matter would have to be heard further and since this court was not inclined to address other aspects, when the appeal could have been disposed on the opinion expressed, the matter stood adjourned. Since this court has already formed an opinion as expressed in the order dated 9.1.2013, the appeal would have to/be disposed of in terms thereof.

The appellant was the plaintiff in the Trial Court. The appellant''s claim was that he had purchased the property from one Kambamma, who along with her sister Bylayellamma, had been re-granted the land as inam land. Subsequent to re-grant, Bylayellamma and Kambamma are said to have partitioned the properties between themselves. The predecessor of the defendants, even prior to the order of regrant, had sold site No. 6, identified as site No. 6 in land in survey No. 23 of Shivanahalli village in favour of the deceased defendant. It transpires that subsequently, the land was acquired for the benefit of the City Improvement Trust Board and the acquisition proceedings had attained finality. Notwithstanding the acquisition proceedings, the appellant is said to have purchased the property under a sale deed dated 25.6.1986. The defendant, who had purchased the property well prior to the re-grant in favour of her vendor, had approached the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ''BDA'' for brevity) in terms of a notification, whereby the BDA had resolved to reconvey the properties, which continued to be in possession of the erstwhile owners or persons claiming under them, and the property had been reconveyed under a reconveyance deed and a letter of reconveyance had been issued in favour of the defendant and khata was also transferred in favour of the defendant pursuant to the same. When matters stood thus, the appellant had also filed an application seeking reconveyance, which was pending. On the allegation that there was interference by the defendant insofar as the property that was conveyed to the appellant, a civil suit was filed initially seeking the relief of bare injunction, which was later amended to include the relief of declaration, that the appellant had acquired title from the vendor. The trial court has framed several issues, of which the additional issue was in relation to the acquisition of title. The court below has addressed the circumstance that insofar as the defendant was concerned, though the sale deed in favour of defendant was executed upon re-grant in favour of the vendor of the defendant, the defect in title, if any, stood cured on the principle of feeding the grant by estoppel. However, insofar as the plaintiff was concerned, there was never a reconveyance made in favour of his vendor and the application filed by the petitioner - appellant was pending even as on the date of the suit and therefore, the court below has concluded that there was no title in the vendor of the plaintiff or the plaintiff as on the date of the suit and has decided the issue No. 1 against the appellant. Irrespective of the findings on other issues, this court is of the opinion that the appellant will not be able to make out a case as regards title and insofar as possession is concerned, as admittedly, the suit property was a vacant site acquired by fee State and stood vested in the State, which has been handed over to the BDA and the plaintiff seeks reconveyance of the land. Therefore, the question of possession is immaterial. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition which is an adjunct seeing consideration of the application for re-conveyance of the land in question, would also not merit consideration and stands dismissed.