BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. AFROZE AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by the Bangalore Development Authority arises out of the interim order passed by the City Civil Court in OS 7025/2012. The property in question (Site No. 4C-420) is said to be part of Sy. No. 21/1 of Kacharakanahlli Village, Bangalore North which the BDA has acquired by a preliminary notification dated 21.3.1977 to the extent of 3.12 acres, followed by a final notification dated 14.5.1980. It appears the original owner, after the notification, has sold the property in favour of Tanveer Shariff on 14.7.2003. This Tanveer Shariff sold the same to Nadeem Pasha on 19.11.2008 and Nadeem Pasha has sold in favour of Afroze Ahmed, the plaintiff. The BDA is in appeal on the ground that the property is already acquired by it and also possession has been taken on 13.6.1983 itself as per the mahazar and also contended that the suit itself is not maintainable, the order passed by the trial court by way of an interim order to maintain status quo or any other order is non-est. The appellant BDA has also sought to vacate the interim order passed. In support of his argument, counsel representing the BDA has relied upon several decisions--

(2.) The Apex Court in Mahaveer's case citedregarding adverse possession has observed, where possession of the acquired land is taken by the State and handed over to the respondent society, the society becomes the absolute owner of the said land and the plea of adverse possession has been rightly negated by the courts below. In Brijesh Reddy's case cited above, relied upon by the appellant's counsel, the Apex Court has observed that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose and civil court cannot take cognizance and as per S. 9, CPC, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction on invalidity of procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. In Addi Housing Industries Ltd's case, noted above, the Division Bench of this Court has held plaintiff therein has not derived any title or interest in the schedule land and possession of the plaintiff as per the alleged sale deed is not lawful and the suit is liable to be dismissed. In Bettaswamy's case noted above, it is observed that the trial court extending sympathy directed the BDA to issue notice and evict the plaintiff in accordance with law but such sympathy will harm public interest as there are several other persons waiting for lawful allotment. Thus, it is his contention that plaintiff has not proved his title or right to remain in possession and that the dismissal of the suit is justified.

(3.) Per contra, counsel representing the plaintiff/respondent has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surjith Singh & Ors. v. Harbans Singh & Ors, 1996 AIR(SC) 135 to contend that in defiance of the restraint order, assignment was made by one party and the assignees in the circumstances cannot claim to be impleaded as parties on the basis of assignment. Counsel also relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in WP 38306-308/2011 decided on 12.10.2012 to contend that in similar circumstance, this Court opined that when a person is in settled possession in the face of material document produced, the course is open under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974.