COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. K S NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in these appeals, by special leave, is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience facts of Civil Appeal 8307 of 2002, which has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001 passed by Karnataka High Court in R.F.A. No. 406 of 2001, shall be stated.

(2.) The respondent K.S. Narayan filed Original Suit No. 5371 of 1989 in the court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, praying that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant Bangalore Development Authority, their agents and servants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property and from demolishing any structure situate thereon. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows. The plaintiff purchased the property in dispute bearing No. 46, situated in Banasawadi village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk from S. Narayana Gowda by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.6.1985. The erstwhile owners of the property had obtained conversion certificate from the Tehsildar and the property is situated in a lay out which is properly approved by obtaining conversion for non-agricultural use from the competent authority. The plaintiff applied for mutation entries and the same was granted in his favour. The property in dispute was not covered by any acquisition proceedings as neither notice of acquisition had been received nor any award regarding the said property had been passed. The defendant had no right, title or interest over the property but it was trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the same on the ground of alleged acquisition. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 11.7.1989 calling upon it not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute but no reply had been received. It was pleaded that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 11.7.1989, the date of the notice and also when the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed property.

(3.) xx xx xx