RUKMINI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.

(2.) The appellant is the writ petitioner. The facts of the case are peculiar. Therefore, a brief reference to the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition filed by the appellant will have to be made. The subject matter of the writ petition is a land totally measuring 5 guntas in Sy. No. 128 in Bilekahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. A civil suit was filed by the present appellant's husband to which, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, two Co-operative Societies and the State of Karnataka are parties. As can be seen from paragraph 1 of the judgment dated 31st May 2012, in the suit, a prayer was made for grant of vacant possession of the subject land measuring 5 guntas. The suit was contested by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the State Government. In the written statement, it was contended that the area of subject matter of acquisition was 4 acres and 34 guntas in Sy. Nos. 128 and 129. It was, therefore, contended that the question of retention of 5 guntas of land described in the schedule in the suit will not arise. The second defendant-Society filed a written statement contending that an area of 2 acres and 20 guntas in Sy. No. 128 and an area of 2 acre 14 guntas in Sy. No. 129 have been acquired and compensation has been paid to the appellant's husband.

(3.) The Trial Court framed four issues. The first issue was whether possession of the land measuring 5 guntas was with the defendants in the suit. The second issue was whether the appellant's husband was entitled to vacant possession of the said land measuring 5 guntas. The said two issues were answered against the appellant's husband through whom the appellant is now claiming. In the civil suit, a finding was recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the second and third defendants in the suit (the Societies) were in possession of the acquired land measuring 4 acres and 34 guntas only and they have no claim in respect of the land measuring 5 guntas in Sy. No. 128. The Trial Court observed that the remedy of the appellant's husband was elsewhere to locate the said 5 guntas of land and then to seek possession. An appeal preferred against the decree of dismissal of the suit has been dismissed by this Court. In paragraph 16 of the judgment of this Court, it was observed that the suit for possession was barred by limitation. The decree of the Trial Court and the confirmation thereof by this Court has become final as the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant's husband has been dismissed.