9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5634 of 1980, by the common impugned order, the High Court while upholding the Trial Court judgment decreeing the suit and holding that the Appellant/Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property, has further held that site allotted to Defendant No. 20 (Respondent No. 27 in Civil Appeal No. 9731 of 2024 and Respondent No. 01 in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2024) is not the part of Sy. No. 305/2. Furthermore, the High Court has held that Defendant Nos.9, 10(a), 11(a), 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23 and 24 (Respondent Nos.1 to 13 in Civil Appeal No. 9731 of 2024 and Respondent Nos.10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28 and 29 in Civil Appeal No. 9732 of 2024) are entitled to receive 30 per cent of the amount of compensation payable in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a total of 23 other defendants. 4. It is relevant to mention here that Kempapura Agrahara village was an Inam village, and the land stood vested in the State in terms of the provisions contained in Mysore (Personnel & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 with effect from 01.02.1959. Consequently, all jodidars retained interests corresponding to their respective shares. Among them was one Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma, who held 1/7th share in the village. Pursuant to an application submitted by her to the competent authority, Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma was granted occupancy rights for 1 acre and 3 guntas of land in Sy No. 132/2, vide order dated 09.12.1969. Although the initial mutation was sanctioned in her name, the Tehsildar, following a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and possession. This suit was partly decreed on 30.10.1986 declaring the title of the Appellant/Plaintiff over 1 acre and 3 guntas of the suit property, but the relief of possession as sought was dismissed on the ground that the sale deed did not detail the land in question as the declaration of possession of Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma was 1 acre and 12 guntas. Suit of declaration for recovery of possession from out of the scheduled property which measured 1 acre and 12 guntas was to be resorted to by the Appellant/Plaintiff. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1986, the Appellant/Plaintiff preferred RFA No.747 of 1986 whereas Defendant No.1-Society preferred RFA No.191 of 1987. The Regular First Appeal as preferred by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d judgment dated 05.12.2014 upheld the judgment passed by the Trial Court in OS No.5634 of 1980 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Defendant No.1-Society, i.e. RFA No.882/2008. However, RFA No.887 of 2008 preferred by Defendant No.20 was allowed. The High Court set aside the judgment and decree so far as it pertained to the land allotted to Defendant No.20, declaring that the site allotted to Defendant No.20 was unrelated to the scheduled suit property. 11. Regarding RFA No.902 of 2008, the High Court determined that Defendants Nos. 9, 10(a), 11(a), 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23, and 24 (hereinafter referred to as 'private Defendants') were entitled to receive 30 per cent of the compensation for the acquired portion, proportionate to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intiff has further challenged the grant of relief equal to 30 per cent of the amount of compensation payable in respect of the sites which were allotted to the private Defendants by asserting that for the fault of Defendant No.1-Society, the Appellant/Plaintiff cannot be held liable, nor can he be forced to share the amount of compensation. The liability, if any, would be of Defendant No.1-Society of which these private Defendants were members. It has further been asserted by him that the possession and construction, if any, carried out by these private Defendants was at their own risk and peril. After the High Court had held the Appellant/Plaintiff to be the absolute lawful owner of the suit property, being entitled to full rights over the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ro Rail Project. Support has, therefore, been made with regard to the grant of compensation. 18. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate for the parties but are unable to accept the stand as has been sought to be projected by the learned Senior Advocate for the private Defendants. It is not in dispute that till date, no claim whatsoever has been projected either in the appeal before the High Court or before any other competent authority for the grant of compensation for the land having been acquired. The judgment as has been passed by the High Court affirming the ownership and title of the suit property in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff has not been challenged by any of these private Defendants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
