- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 30th May, 2012 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the High Court has allowed RFA Nos. 912, 914, 915 and 916 of 2002, set aside the judgments and orders of the courts below and dismissed the suits relevant to those appeals. The High Court has, at the same time, affirmed the decree passed in OS No. 6925 of 2001 and dismissed RFA No. 911 of 2002 filed by the Appellant against the same. The factual backdrop in which the suits and the appeals mentioned above came to be filed may be summarised as under:
(3.) M. Venkatesh-Appellant in SLP (C) No. 38601 of 2012 claimed ownership over the suit schedule property by inheritance from his grandfather Munishamappa who is said to have purchased the same under a registered sale-deed dated 7th July, 1954. In connected SLP (C) No. 12016 of 2013 Prabhaudas Patel also claimed to be the owner of suit schedule property relevant to his suit on the basis of purchase of the said property from its previous owner. The aforementioned two parcels of land together with a larger extent in the vicinity were acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' For short) for the formation of Hosur Road, Sarjapur Layout in terms of a preliminary notification dated 17th July, 1984 and a final notification dated 28th November, 1986 published on 25th December, 1986, after notices to the Khatedars and the persons interested, some of whom had filed their claims before the competent authority. Determination of amount of compensation payable to the landowners having been approved by the competent authority on 21st August, 1986, the BDA claimed that possession of the land was taken over from the landowners and handed over to the engineering section of the authority by drawing a possession mahazar on 6th November, 1987. A Notification Under Section 16(2) of the Act was also published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 4th July, 1991 which, according to the BDA, signified that the land in question stood vested with the BDA free from all encumbrances whatsoever. The further case of BDA is that long after the land had vested in the BDA, sites were carved out and sold to different persons by the erstwhile owners, the unauthorised act of the Plaintiffs, however, got vacated and the possession was taken over.;