COMMISSIONER BELGAUM Vs. SIDDESHWAR BASAPRABHAPPA HAMPANNAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOMETIMES bonafide and queer mistakes do happen creating a riddled situation. Application of strict rules of law to such cases may not all the time advance cause of justice. Strict application of rules of Law jettisoning the principles of equity when permissible may cause more mischief than remedy the grievance of the parties. Here in this case, the land belonging to one S. V. Koujalagi in Saudathi village was purchased by the second defendant under private negotiations for putting up construction of buildings for water works to provide water facility to Hubli-Dharwad Corporation. Under the mistaken identity on the adjoining land belonging to the respondents measuring 1 Acre and 25 guntas in R. S. No. 9a/1/b of Saundathi village has been encroached and constructions have been put up for the buildings. The plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction for demolition of structures in O. S. No. 22/85 renumbered as O. S. No. 11/98. The Suit came to be allowed.

(2.) THE Judgment and decree was challenged in R. A. No. 43/91 before the II Addl. District judge, Belgaum. The learned Appellate judge allowed the appeal remanding the suit for reconsideration with a specific direction to the trial Court to consider whether the damages in lieu of mandatory injunction would be an adequate remedy, if so, to ascertain quantum of damages accordingly to dispose of the Suit only on the aforesaid points. The parties were directed to lead evidence. In the course of judgment, a reference is also made by the learned Appellate Judge about the submission made by the plaintiff/respondent about his willingness to take proper compensation by way of damages for the loss of land. Even in the statutory notice issued, it is mentioned that the plaintiff claimed damages and was not serious about getting the possession of the land. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions made at the bar and the inclination of the plaintiff to be satisfied with the compensation, remanded the case for fresh consideration as to whether the damages would be adequate remedy and if so, that would be the quantum of damages to be paid.

(3.) THE Judgment rendered by the II Addl. District Judge, Belgaum, was not challenged. As such, after remand, evidence was let in by the parties before the trial Court. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent acquiesced to the order passed in appeal and let in evidence with regard to the quantum of compensation payable. In the evidence of the respondent before the trial Court after remand, in his Examination-in-Chief, he has stated thus: