I.K. NANAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. The suit was one for mandatory injunction and for issuance of khata. It was the plaintiff's case that the suit property was gifted to him on the 28th year of independence of India by the Block Development Officer (BDO), Bangalore, vide Hakku Patra dated 22.12.1979 and that the site, which was granted to him, was assessed to tax and he was put in possession of the suit property and he had been paying taxes. Since he wanted to construct a house, he had applied for sanction of plan, but the same was rejected by the second defendant namely, the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike with an endorsement that there were writ petitions pending in respect of the land in survey No. 18 of Marenahalli, out of which, the suit property was culled out. The defendants claimed that the land in survey No. 18 had vested with the State and therefore the issuance of khata stood revoked. The government had requisitioned all papers pertaining to the aid survey number from the BDO in the year 1995. During this process, it is stated that the Deputy Commissioner had misplaced all the documents pertaining to land in Survey No. 18 and there was an inquiry initiated and was pending before the Corps of Detectives. The first defendant therefore refused to issue khata in respect of the suit property, whereas such khata was issued to other similarly placed persons, who had been granted such sites and the appellant therefore had approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction claiming that there was discrimination insofar as the appellant was concerned. This court, in its writ jurisdiction, had remanded the matter directing the State to reconsider the case of the petitioners. In the meanwhile, he had constructed a shed and had put up a compound wall in respect of the site which was allotted to him in the first instance. Notwithstanding that this court, in its writ jurisdiction, while remanding the matter, had extended the order of status -quo, it is alleged that the respondents had demolished the shed and removed the compound wall. Therefore, the appellant was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings before this court in CC No. 2052/1999. The said proceedings were dismissed on the ground that the appellant had not placed the particulars as regards the date on which the order of the court was disobeyed by the respondents. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE plaintiff unfortunately died during the pendency of the suit and the legal representatives are now on record. However, defendants 2 to 5 contested the suit and the State Government remained ex -parte. The defendants claimed that there was no cause of action. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. There was no compliance with Section 482 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and so on and so forth. It was pointed out that the property was worth Rs. 10,00,000/ - as on the date of the suit and the plaintiff had not paid the court fees on the same. It was also pointed out that the claim of the plaintiff that the BDO had gifted the suit property, was not tenable as the BDO had no authority to gift the suit property and hence the defendants sought dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court: