Anand Byrareddy, J. - (1.) THESE appeals are heard and disposed of together, as they are preferred against the same judgment.
(2.) THE appellant in appeal No. RFA 1876/2014, namely, the Bangalore Development Authority, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA', for brevity), a statutory body constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity) was the plaintiff The suit was filed for a declaratory relief that the property bearing survey No. 10/17 of Jarakabandekaval, Yeshwanthpura hobli, Bangalore north taluk measuring 29 guntas, presently bearing Industrial site No. 86/G formed by the BDA, which was more fully described in the Schedule to the plaint, was never withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the final notification dated 13.4.1964, issued under the provisions of Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1884. And also to declare that a judgment and decree passed in civil suit bearing O.S. No. 554/1981, by the court of the 17th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dated 25.9.1992, as not binding the plaintiff, BDA. And for injunctory reliefs restraining defendants No. 1 to 7 from interfering with the said property. It was the case of the plaintiff that before its constitution in the year 1976, its predecessor -m -interest was the City Improvement Trust Board, (hereinafter referred to as 'the CITB', for brevity), also a statutory body which was engaged in the planned development of Bangalore City. It was stated that in order to form and establish an Industrial layout, known as Industrial Suburb, II Stage, it was proposed to acquire lands situated around Jharakabandekaval, Yelahanka, Bangalore North taluk, including the land bearing survey No. 10/17. A notification dated 13.4.1964 was said to have been issued under the provisions of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1988, (Hereinafter referred to as 'the MLA Act', for brevity). According to the revenue records, the said land bearing survey No. 10/17 is said to have been found in the name of Chikkavenkatappa, son of Pillavenkatappa, as the Khatedar. It was stated that notices under Section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898, (Hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act, 1898', for brevity) having been issued, it is stated that the widow of Chikkavenkatappa had entered appearance and is said to have petitioned seeking the notified land be reconveyed in her favour. However, an award having been passed, vide award dated 14.7.1965, the award amount was said to have been kept in a revenue deposit for the benefit of the khatedars. It was also stated that after issuing award notices, physical possession is said to have been taken over by the CITB on 7.10.1965. It was stated that the above and other lands so acquired were said to have been substantially put to use and the Scheme, under which the acquisition proceedings had been initiated, was substantially implemented. In the year 1976, the plaintiff having been constituted, the powers and functions of the erstwhile CITB were said to have been exercised and performed by the BDA. It is stated that in the above background, the BDA is said to have allotted the suit schedule property on a Lease -cum -Sale basis in favour of one Narayana Raju. And a registered lease deed is said to have been executed as on 26.11.1977 in favour of the said allottee. The said allottee having died, he was represented in the suit by defendants 8 to 10, his legal representatives. It is said that one Muniyamma, claiming to be the widow of Chikkavenkatappa, as already stated, is said to have sought for reconveyance of the land in her favour. It is stated that in response to the same the plaintiff had issued an endorsement dated 27.10.1980, to the effect that the erstwhile CITB had, by a Resolution dated 16.1.1974, recommended the de -notification of the suit schedule property. However, it was the plaintiffs case that there were no further steps taken in that regard, to complete the formality. The property in question, however, was integrated into the industrial layout and was the subject matter of allotment in favour of late Narayana Raju, represented by defendants 8 to 10. The property hence stood vested in the plaintiff as absolute owner, subject to the lease agreement aforesaid. It was the plaintiffs further case that the aforesaid Muniyamma and her two sons, namely (late) Mahadevan and Defendant No. 7, are said to have filed a civil suit in O.S. 554/1981 on the file of the 17th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking a declaratory relief, to the effect that they were the absolute owners of the very same suit property as was involved in the present suit, in view of the State having withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings, as claimed by the plaintiffs therein. Consequently, they had sought injunctory reliefs against Narayana Raju, who was admittedly in possession and had also put up construction over the suit property, as an allottee of an industrial site, claiming under the present plaintiff, the BDA. Significantly, the BDA was not a party to the said suit. However, the said suit was said to have been decreed in favour of Mumyamma and defendant No. 7 herein, as on 25.9.1992. As against the above said judgment and decree, late Narayana Raju is said to have preferred an appeal before this court in RFA 73/1993. The same is said to have been dismissed as on 7.4.1999. Subsequently, defendants 8 to 10, as the legal representatives of late Narayana Raju, are said to have preferred a Review Petition in C.P. 683/1999, which in turn was said to have been allowed and the earlier judgment by this very court had been recalled and the judgment and decree in the suit was said to have been reversed and the suit dismissed, by an order dated 8.3.2001. As against the order passed in the above Review petition, defendant No. 7 herein is said to have filed a Special Leave Petition in SLP 8030 -31/2001, before the Supreme Court of India. It transpires that by an Order dated 13.2.2008, the said petition having been allowed, granting leave to appeal and the appeal is said to have been allowed, reversing the decision of this court dated 8.3.2001. In the result, the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S. 554/1981 stood revived. It was hence the plaintiffs grievance that by virtue of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 554/1981, the plaintiffs right, title and interest over the suit property was directly affected. The plaintiff claimed that it became aware of the repercussions of the above said proceedings, to which the BDA was not a party, only when routinely taking stock of disputed items of property which were subject matter of the earlier acquisition proceedings. And also when the lessee's possession was sought to be disturbed. It is thereafter, that the plaintiff and its men are said to have taken steps to obtain the particulars of the earlier proceedings and had filed the suit. It was specifically urged that the suit filed by the legal representatives of the erstwhile owner of the land in question was not maintainable on more than one count. It was pointed out that it is on record that possession of the land had been taken over pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, as early as in the year 1965. Hence a suit for declaration that the plaintiff in O.S. 554/1981, was the absolute owner of the suit property, filed in the year 1981 was not maintainable. Secondly, that the land in question being subject matter of acquisition proceedings, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendants 7(a) to (c), the legal representatives of defendant No. 7 who had died during the pendency of the suit, had filed their written statement contesting the suit. It was contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. It was disputed that the suit schedule property could now be identified as Industrial site No. 86/G or that it was situated in land bearing survey No. 10/17. On the other hand it was said that the site No. 86/G was to be found located in land bearing survey No. 10/4. It was pointed out that this very question had been addressed in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 554/1981. And that this very court had held that site No. 86/G was situated in land bearing Sy. No. 10/4 and that this factum had also been confirmed by the Supreme Court of India. And it was asserted that the CITB had never acquired the land bearing survey No. 10/17 and that the present suit was nothing but a ruse to lay claim over the same. It was contended that though the preliminary and final notifications for acquisition of the land in question had been issued, physical possession had never been taken, either by the erstwhile CITB or the plaintiff, from Smt. Muniyamma or Radhakrishna, who was said to be the son of Muniyamma. In other words, it was sought to be emphasized that neither Muniyamma nor her successors -m - interest, had been divested of the property. It was alleged that in the year 1981, Narayana Raju who was claiming to be an allottee of an industrial site bearing No. 86/G, under the BDA, is said to have trespassed on land bearing survey No. 10/17 and having sought to lay claim to the same. It had entailed Muniyamma and her sons filing the civil suit in OS 554/1981, which had run its course and had now attained finality - in the matter having reached the apex court and the judgment and decree in favour of Muniyamma and her sons having been affirmed. It was also sought to be pointed out that during the pendency of the suit in OS 554/1981, the BDA had been notified through its Commissioner, that it was required to appear and produce records pertaining to the acquisition proceedings and accordingly one Byraiah, was said to be examined as PW -2, as on 16.8.1986 and 20.7.1988. Further, one Mahadevaiah had been examined as DW -2 on behalf of the BDA, to speak for the material produced, as on 27.6.1989. Therefore, it would have to be presumed that BDA was aware of the claims of both the parties in the suit, especially when one of them, the defendant therein, was claiming to be in possession of the suit property under the BDA. Hence it is contended that the present suit is only an attempt to raise decided issues, to circumvent the judgment and decree that has attained finality in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further pointed out that the plaintiff had acknowledged that there was indeed a resolution passed by the CITB as on 16.1.1974 recommending that the suit property be dropped from the acquisition proceedings. And such a resolution could be passed only if possession of the land in question had not been taken. And as it is not the case of the BDA that it had taken possession of the land in question, after it came into existence in the year 1975, it is conclusive that the owners of the land have never been divested of physical possession of the land and hence, it could not be said that the same had vested with the BDA. This aspect of the matter has been found as a fact in the earlier proceedings and was conclusively decided. On the above and other incidental pleadings, it was sought that the suit be dismissed.
(3.) THE trial court had framed the following issues on the basis of the above pleadings: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property which was acquired under notification dated 13.4.1964 is not denotified and plaintiff is in possession? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 554/1981 is not binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that there is interference to its possession by defendants 1 to 7? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that it is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit?;