PREMA, W/O S. SUDHAKARA RAO Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD. BANGALORE-560020. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the XVI Addl City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No. 2741/2000 dated 18.2.2010.

(2.) SUIT was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking for permanent injunction, declaration and possession claiming to be the purchaser of properties bearing Nos. 107, 108, 131 and 132 of Sy.No. 21/1 of Kacharakanahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk, totally measuring about 5812 sq. ft. It is stated that, there is a sale deed executed in her favour on 24.8.1983 by her vendor and she had been put in possession and she is in settled possession and also claiming that she had filed an application before the Screening Committee during February 1990 for regulation of sites and also writ petition was filed, but no order has been passed by BDA on the application tiled rather, during February 2000 defendant -BDA has started demolishing the compound wall, as such, apprehending demolition of the structure, appellant -plaintiff had sought for perpetual injunction initially. Matter was contested by the defendant stating that there was an acquisition proceeding initiated in respect of Sy.No. 21/1. Totally 3 acres 12 guntas of land, including the suit property, was acquired for formation of Hennur -Banaswadi Road layout and the acquisition proceedings had been concluded by issuing notice to the khatedars and award has been passed and possession has also been taken way back during July 1983 by paying compensation to the khatedars and plaintiff has purchased the property only after taking possession of the land. Accordingly, it has sought for dismissal of the suit. Based on the pleadings, five issues were raised. Ultimately, the trial Court after enquiry, has dismissed the suit filed by order dated 28.7.2007, against which, RFA No. 1954/2007 was filed by which mailer was remanded to the trial Court and after remand, once again, the trial Court on the amended pleadings, raised two more additional issues regarding the alleged unauthorised demolition and also regarding the additional prayer for declaration and possession and after further enquiry, has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, as against which, the appellant -plaintiff is before this Court.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Learned Counsel for the appellant, the suit property does not fall within the area acquired by the respondent BDA to the extent of 1 acre 25 guntas. Plaintiff is in settled possession. The acquisition proceeding had not been concluded in a proper manner. The structure had been demolished illegally by the BDA. Further, relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2001 (1) KLJ 364 in the case of John B James and others Vs.