COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. K S NARAYAN
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on October 11,2006

COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
VERSUS
K.S.NARAYAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF BIHAR VS. DHIRENDRAKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI CHAND VS. GRAM PANCHAYAT KARARIA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAMESH CHANDRA AND ORS. VS. U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-469] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD REP BY THE CHAIRMAN & ANOTHER VS. M/S MASTER CRAFTS PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP BY POWER AGENT SUMAN VOORA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-410] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD VS. JAYANTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2021-8-151] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL MITTAL VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-250] [REFERRED TO]
POOJARI PEDANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2009-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI NAMDEV SADASHIV ADSUL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
MITHAI LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-146] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR VS. CHANDI BAI & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BRIJESH REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2013-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
DAVID MANTOSH VS. APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2013-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL VS. SAROJA GUPTA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
T. AMUTHAN ANTHONY VS. C.S. BALAKRISHNAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-522] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. NAND LAL, MOHAN LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-281] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE MUNI REDDY VS. AIR CRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY [LAWS(KAR)-2013-1-365] [REFERRED]
BHAGIRATHI VS. BODHAN [LAWS(CHH)-2022-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
PARMANAND KANAIYALAL NIMBARK VS. A M C [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-246] [REFERRED TO]
BRIG. SASSI INDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2008-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. AMARJIT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-88] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH AND ORS VS. KALYAN SINGH AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-744] [REFERRED]
COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA VS. DAVID MANTOSH AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2019-2-142] [REFERRED TO]
JAHURA BEGUM VS. RUPJAHAN BEGUM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-6-63] [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SHIKSHANA SANGHA VS. HANUMANTASA TULAJANSA PAWAR [LAWS(KAR)-2013-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. SHANTI PARSHAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-7-444] [REFERRED TO]
SALEM PERIYAR KUDIYIRUPPU NALA SANGAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-293] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The issue involved in these appeals, by special leave, is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience facts of Civil Appeal 8307 of 2002, which has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001 passed by Karnataka High Court in R.F.A. No. 406 of 2001, shall be stated.
(2.)The respondent K.S. Narayan filed Original Suit No. 5371 of 1989 in the court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, praying that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant Bangalore Development Authority, their agents and servants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property and from demolishing any structure situate thereon. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows. The plaintiff purchased the property in dispute bearing No. 46, situated in Banasawadi village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk from S. Narayana Gowda by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.6.1985. The erstwhile owners of the property had obtained conversion certificate from the Tehsildar and the property is situated in a lay out which is properly approved by obtaining conversion for non-agricultural use from the competent authority. The plaintiff applied for mutation entries and the same was granted in his favour. The property in dispute was not covered by any acquisition proceedings as neither notice of acquisition had been received nor any award regarding the said property had been passed. The defendant had no right, title or interest over the property but it was trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the same on the ground of alleged acquisition. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 11.7.1989 calling upon it not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute but no reply had been received. It was pleaded that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 11.7.1989, the date of the notice and also when the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed property.
(3.)xx xx xx


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.