STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SIDDALINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The regular first appeals arise from the judgment and decree dtd. 23/7/2010 passed in OS No.7/2008 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Soraba, (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short), whereby the plaintiff's suit seeking compensation and alternatively for declaration of ownership and possession over the suit schedule property was decreed.

(2.) RFA 137/2011 is preferred by the State- (defendants No.1 to 3) and RFA 406/2011 is preferred by defendant No.4, the Town Municipal Council, Shikaripura, (TMC for short).

(3.) On 1/3/1941 TMC passed a resolution to form and distribute sites in Sy.No.6. On 8/8/1941 TMC passed a resolution to acquire Sy. No.6 (suit properties are shown as Sy. Nos.6/1 and 6/2). On 30/12/1941 TMC passed a resolution and resolved that Rs.2,106.00 must be deposited for the land acquisition as per LAC:10/41-42. On 11/10/1945, a final notification was issued by the State under Sec. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (' LA Act ' for short). Chittur Siddappa's sons i.e., Honnappa and Siddabasappa effected oral partition on 24/9/1934. The oral partition was reduced in writing on 15/2/1949. Under the said document, the parties agreed to share the compensation receivable in respect of the acquisition of Sy. No.6. On 1/6/1951 one site each was allotted in Sy.No.6 in favour of four persons of the family of the plaintiffs. A layout formed in respect of Sy.No.5 and Sy.No.6 was sent to the State Government for approval in view of certain changes on 28/7/1952. TMC resolved to shift the bus stand by a resolution dtd. 31/12/1952. According to the appellants in both the appeals, Sy. No.6 (shown as Sy. Nos.6/1 and 6/2 in the schedule) along with other properties were acquired for the benefit of the municipality. The revenue records from 1951-52 indicate the suit property has been acquired for municipality. This being the state of affairs, one Mallikarjun, family member of plaintiff No.1 instituted suit for partition and separate possession in OS No.177/2006. Plaintiff No.2 instituted another suit for partition and separate possession in OS No.106/2006 by including Sy. No.6 and obtained injunction order not to put up any bus stand. OS No.106/2006 was transferred and re-numbered as OS No.180/2006. The interim order granted by the trial Court was vacated. The same came to be challenged by plaintiff No.2 in MFA No.11858/2006 and an order of status quo was granted. The TMC filed review petition in RP No.519/2006. This Court in review petition revoked the order of status quo on an undertaking given by the TMC that defendant will demolish the building if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit. OS No.180/2006 and OS No.177/2006 were transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.), Soraba and re-numbered as OS No.252/2007 and OS No.254/2007. The said suits came to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The present suit, OS No.7/2008, is filed seeking direction to the defendants to complete the acquisition proceedings, pay compensation based on current market value to both the plaintiffs and defendant No.178, in proportion to their ownership rights in the suit property. Alternatively, if the acquisition is not completed, declare the plaintiffs and defendant No.178 as rightful owners and order that vacant possession of the specified properties be handed over to them. The plaintiffs' state that the suit properties are the joint family properties. They allege that the defendants have neither taken possession nor passed an award nor paid compensation. Thus, they remain the owners. The plaintiffs aver that as per the partition deed dtd. 15/2/1949, item No.1 of the schedule property was divided between Honnappa (father of plaintiff No.1) and Siddabasappa (father of the mother of defendant No.178), both being sons of Siddappa and item No.2 of the schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiff No.2's family.