P. RUKMANDHA REDDY Vs. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by legal representatives of the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 5.12.2006 passed by II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in R.A. No. 214/2003 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Principal II Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 145/1997 dated 2.6.2003.

(2.) THE case of the appellants -plaintiffs in the suit before the trial court was to the reliefs that they be declared as full and absolute owners of schedule land and that, defendants have no right, title or interest over the same and consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land or from trespassing from any portion thereof. The father of the plaintiffs and his brothers purchased certain lands from Smt. Ratnammal and Sri. Ramkumar, who were the legal heirs of Jodidhars through the registered sale deed dated 9.3.1953. From the date of registration, father of the plaintiffs and his brothers were personally cultivating the lands. Subsequently, there was partition among plaintiff's father and his brothers. As per the terms and conditions of the said partition, it was decided that in view of abolition of inam and introduction of Inam Abolition Act (for short 'the Act'), the persons who were allotted respective lands had to approach the concerned authorities for registering katha for grant of occupancy rights. The father of the plaintiffs, who was allotted 52 acres of land in Sy. No. 55 of Tharalu village along with other survey numbers, made an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, Bangalore, who in turn, as per his endorsement dated 5.12.1962, granted the occupancy rights in favour of father of the plaintiffs in respect of aforesaid extent of land. The father of the plaintiffs also submitted declaration under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, showing all his holdings. After a detailed enquiry, the land tribunal held that the father of the plaintiffs was not having excess of land and accordingly, passed an order on 27.2.1982. Subsequently, father of the plaintiffs effected partition among his children. In the oral partition, 13 acres of land in Sy. No. 55 of Tharalu village had fallen to the share of plaintiffs, which was more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. Sy. No. 55 in all measured 555 acres of land and out of this, about 300 acres were in the occupation of different persons. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, by his order dated 23.9.1995, granted 253 acres of land in Sy. No. 55 in favour of CRPF in order to establish a firing range. Though the land was granted to CRPF, neither possession of the land was delivered nor grant certificate was issued to them. However, the revenue authorities had directed the survey department to survey the land and to earmark the extent of land granted in favour of CRPF to put them in possession of the same. Unfortunately, while surveying the land, without knowing the fact that original plaintiff was the owner of 13 acres of land in Sy. No. 55, the survey department, in the absence of the plaintiff, had fixed the boundaries and surveyed the land including the portion of land of the plaintiff. No notice had been issued to the plaintiff or any other land owners. Based on the survey of the survey department, the CRPF people started to harass the original plaintiff and he was not allowed to enter upon his own land. The CRPF also tried to cut and remove the trees on the suit schedule land of the plaintiff. The original plaintiff made an application requesting the revenue authorities to fix addubast in respect of land of his children by letter dated 14.3.1996. Subsequently, the survey department realized the mistake and addressed a letter to the revenue department stating that some of the lands were in possession of different persons and hence, the entire extent of land had to be resurveyed. When the matter stood thus, it was for the revenue authorities and survey department to take measurement and to fix boundaries to the land which had been granted in favour of CRPF. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that before resurvey of the property in question, the respondent -defendants had interfered with lawful possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Since the original plaintiff could not lodge any complaint against the police, he filed the aforesaid suit.

(3.) ON the basis of the said pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: