H V SRINIVAS Vs. AIR FORCE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant for a judgment and decree to restrain the defendant permanently from interfering with the plaintiffs lawful possession of the suit property. The suit property is 24 acres of land situated in Sy. No. 43 of Jarakbande Kaaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. According to the plaint averments, plaintiffs are the joint owners of the suit property and that they are enjoying the property as its owners. With an intention to protect their property, plaintiffs started putting up of compound in or about June, 1994. Defendant did not allow the plaintiffs to protect their property by putting up a compound. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit. Defendant filed a detailed written statement contending that plaintiffs are not in possession of the same and therefore they cannot be permitted to put up compound. According to the defendant, defendant is in possession of the property since 1941 and that Sy. No. 43 is situated adjacent to long firing range established by the air-force personnel for imparting training. According to the defendant, suit property is within the effective danger zone. It is also stated that Sy. No. 43 situated within a distance of 800 yards from the Firing Butt and the effective area comes within the effective area of 200 yards from the Firing Butt. According to the defendant, as per para-7 of the Ground Range Regulations, Sy. No. 43 falls in the center of the effective danger zone. Defendant also rely upon a notification issued under S. 9 of The Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). According to this notification, Sy. No. 43 continues to be in danger zone till 1998. Therefore, defendant stated that they are taking necessary steps to acquire the land.

(2.) BASED on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues :

(3.) AFTER framing of the issues and on appreciation of evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were not in lawful possession of the property. Against the said judgment and decree, present appeal is filed.