MAHADEVA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 13/2/2020 passed in R.A.No.410/2018 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mysuru.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs/appellants before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property is an agricultural property which originally belonged to the father of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs got the same and the same was given on lease to him through temporary saguvali chit. Subsequently Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru under 'grow more food' scheme granted land to 22 people belongng to Schedule Caste in Sy.No.28. Out of which 2 acres was allotted to each person in the aforesaid survey number situated at Lalithadripuram village, Varuna hobli, Mysuru taluk and the suit schedule property also assigned the survey number as 28/46. In the meanwhile, the defendant acquired the entire suit schedule property i.e., 2 acres for the formation of layout and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000.00 per acre. It is the contention that the plaintiffs are illiterate and innocent persons. The defendant despite acquiring 2 acres of land, only paid compensation to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas and not paid the compensation to the remaining extent and hence, they have approached the civil court seeking the relief of declaration and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to pay the compensation for the remaining extent of the land. The Trial Court framed the preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit and dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that the suit cannot maintain in the nature of declaration when the property was already acquired. That order has been challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.410/2018. The First Appellate Court also on re- appreciation of material available on record and grounds urged in the appeal as well as reasoning given by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs cannot file a suit for declaration when the property was already acquired and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of the land already acquired as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act . Hence, the present appeal is filed.