ANJANAPPA S/O LATE THAMMANNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.RS. (SMT. CHANAMMA W/O LATE ANJANAPPA AND HANUMAPPA S/O LATE THAMMANNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-1 AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4730/2003. The said suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for consequential injunction. Further a direction was also sought to rectify the entries in the revenue records. The Court below has dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 15.02.2010. The plaintiffs are therefore before this Court in this appeal.

(2.) The factual matrix in the instant case is that the plaintiffs contend that the property bearing Sy.No.26/1, situate at Kothihosahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measures in all 1 acre 16 guntas including 2 guntas of phut kharab. The plaintiffs being brothers are members of joint Hindu family and are in possession and enjoyment of 36 guntas out of the land indicated above. The said extent is stated to have been purchased by their father late Thammanna under sale deed dated 04.11.1968. After his death, the mutation order was made indicating 18 guntas each in the name of the plaintiffs. The remaining extent of 20 guntas in the said survey number was owned by one Sri N.Bachegowda. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that by a notification dated 03.01.1985 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the LA Act' for short) an extent of 14 guntas and 2 guntas of phut kharab belonging to the said Sri N.Bachegowda was notified and the final notification was also issued in that regard. Section 16(2) notification under the LA Act dated 15.04.1991 is also in respect of the said extent of 14 guntas. The land measuring 36 guntas belonging to the plaintiffs has not been acquired as per the contentions of the plaintiffs.

(3.) In that regard, the plaintiffs contend that they had earlier preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.5859/1996 challenging the preliminary notification dated 03.01.1985 and the final notification dated 25.09.1986. In that petition, the 5th defendant herein who was a party is stated to have conceded that only 14 guntas of land belonging to one Sri Bachegowda had been acquired and possession was taken. The plaintiffs therefore contend that they had continued in possession and enjoyment of the remaining extent of 36 guntas. However, the revenue entries had been carried to the name of the 5th defendant and as such the plaintiffs had requested for reversal of the same. They have also referred to another writ petition which they had filed in W.P.No.25436/1996 to direct the respondents therein not to dispossess them. However, the said petition was disposed of leaving it open to the plaintiffs to take appropriate steps to safeguard their title, possession and enjoyment by instituting a suit. It is in that context the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit alleging that there was interference once again during the second week of April 2003. The plaintiffs have therefore prayed for the relief as noticed above.