Smt. N. Meenakshi vs Bangalore Development Authority

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court claiming that he had purchased the suit schedule property under a sale deed dated 2.2.1993. The said site which was purchased by the plaintiff, was part of land that was subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the Bangalore Development Authorities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''the BDA Act'', for brevity). The same was notified for acquisition by preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984 followed by a final notification dated 28.11.1986. After passing an award, possession was taken on 13.10.1988. Therefore, the land had vested with the State. The vendor of the plaintiff was fully aware of the acquisition proceedings and had participated before the Land Acquisition Officer. However, he did not choose to challenge the acquisition proceedings. With the knowledge of such acquisition, the land had been sold in favour of the appellant herein and the appellant claims to have purchased the same notwithstanding the acquisition, and claims to have constructed a house on the suit property. The same would clearly be barred in law. It is these circumstances that the Trial Court has taken notice of, and the suit has been dismissed.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that he would still be able to sustain his possession and seeks time to produce additional documents which would support his case for continued possession of the suit schedule property and that he would like to raise additional grounds, as well. In that, in R.F.A. 1279/2006 disposed of on 10.08.2011, a learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the case of a site owner similarly placed as the present appellant and who is said to be the adjacent site owner, where the learned Single Judge has held that the site owner therein having exercised possession over the land for a period of 12 years, would establish his settled possession. Thus, the appeal filed by the BDA against a decree in favour of a person in possession of a site that was acquired by the BDA, has been dismissed and that it should be applied to the facts on hand.

The learned counsel for the respondent would point out that, settled possession could be claimed by a person who does not assert that he is the owner of the property and in the present case on hand, the appellant categorically claiming to be the owner of the land, would have no case against the BDA when the land has vested in the State. Therefore, the said decision would not advance the case of the appellant. Given the circumstances of the case, and the position of law as settled by the Apex Court in a number of decisions, the latest of which being The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and Another, where the Apex court has categorically laid down that if a property is subject matter of acquisition proceedings, no civil suit could be filed in respect of the same and the acquisition proceedings if sought to be questioned, can only be in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. This was in a case involving the very respondent BDA. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, there is no case made out for admission.

The appeal is rejected.