COMMISSIONER Vs. M CHANDRASHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 remains absent.

(2.) THE suit was one for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the absolute owner of the property described in the suit schedule, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 29/8/2001 and that he had put up construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan sanctioned by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'BBMP', for brevity) and that he was paying property taxes in respect of the house so constructed and when matter stood thus, the officials of the Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA', for brevity) threatened to demolish the property on the footing that it was illegal construction put up on acquired land and therefore the suit was filed. It is incidentally stated that the plaintiff's vendor one Ramaprasad had also faced similar situation and had approached this court in its writ jurisdiction by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.8209/1996 whereby the said writ petition was allowed, holding that the respondents had no jurisdiction over the suit property. It is on that ground that the suit was filed claiming that the respondents could not set up any claim over the suit property. Defendants had entered appearance and had denied the plaint averments and had sought to contend that it was the subjectmatter of acquisition and that it vested in the State and the plaintiff could not claim any right over the same and secondly, the plaintiff's claim that the house property was constructed after obtaining sanction of plan from the BBMP, was not tenable, as the property continue to vest in the BDA and BBMP would have no jurisdiction over the land in question and that any construction put up, was illegal and the plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of the suit property. It is on these pleadings that the court below had framed the following issues:

(3.) THE court below had held the issues in the affirmative and decreed the suit. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.