T.M. GOPALA BINNANI Vs. ALL INDIA CONFEDERATION BANK OFFICERS ORGANIZATION AND THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant and the respondents were the defendants. Suit filed on 09.07.1986 to pass a decree of declaration that the land acquisition proceedings dated 19.09.1977 is without sanction, contrary to S. 18(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'the BDA Act') and for consequential reliefs having been dismissed on 02.12.2008, this appeal was filed on 22.12.2009, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and to decree the suit as prayed for. Plaintiff/appellant purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 30.01.1975 (Ex. P1) i.e., site bearing No. 44 situated in Sy. No. 14/6 of Tavarekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East -West 40 feet, North -South 37 feet, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. The said property having been acquired by issue of a preliminary notification (Ex. P4) and final declaration (Ex. P5) and a resolution having been passed on 17.11.1982, filed the suit, to pass a decree of declaration that the land acquisition proceedings dated 19.09.1977 is without sanction, contrary to S. 18(3) of the BDA Act and that the acquisition proceedings are null and void and the land acquisition proceedings is ineffective and inoperative and for a declaration that the resolution dated 17.11.1982 is void ab -initio and for grant of mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant from demolishing the constructions put up on the suit property and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the impugned acquisition proceedings are valid and sought dismissal of the suit. Respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 filed written statement and contended that the suit for declaration challenging the acquisition proceedings is not maintainable and the same is barred by law and the suit in its form is not maintainable. It further contended that, prior to the institution of the suit, notice contemplated under S. 64 of the BDA Act was not served. It denied all the material averments made in the plaint and sought dismissal of the suit.

(2.) THE learned Trial Judge, initially raised nine issues and on 29.05.1990 raised seven additional issues and again on 26.10.1994 raised two additional issues. Plaintiff got himself examined as PW. 1 and marked Exs. P1 to P21. The Secretary of the 1st defendant -Society got himself examined as DW. 1 and marked Exs. D1 to D6. Considering the rival contentions and record of the suit, learned Trial Judge answered issue Nos. 1 to 6, additional issue Nos. 1 to 4, 8 and 9 in the negative and issue Nos. 7, 8 and additional issue Nos. 5 and 6 in the affirmative. As a result, the suit was dismissed.

(3.) SRI V.B. Shivakumar, learned advocate, appearing for the respondents on the other hand by taking me through the record of the suit and placing reliance on the decision in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another vs. Brijesh Reddy and Another, AIR 2013 SCW 2378 , contended that the view taken by the Trial Court with regard to non -maintainability of the suit is justified. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and that the material brought on record having been appreciated correctly and the findings recorded being neither perverse nor illegal, warrant any interference. He contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to record any finding on the validity or otherwise of acquisition process relating to the suit property, undertaken and completed by the statutory authorities and hence, the impugned decree is justified.