IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1550 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMESH S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.1202, BASATTA KOPPALU HASSAN - 573201 2. B P LAKSHMI W/O RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1202, BASATTA KOPPALU HASSAN - 573201 3. SRI GANGANNA S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1202, BASATTA KOPPALU HASSAN - 573201 (BY SRI. VINAYAKA B., ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANTS AND:
1. THE TAHSILDAR HASSAN TALUK HASSAN--573201 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN - 573201 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201 4. THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE HASSAN-573201 5. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
(BY SRI. NARASIREDDY, AGA.) ... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD: 13.06.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.31/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD: 26.03.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.174/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HASSAN ETC.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the appeal papers.
2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.174/2017 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan. The appellants - plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of 16 guntas of land in survey No.399/3 of Basatta Koppalu, Hassan City. The Thasildar and other authorities, including the Principal, Government Arts College, Hassan, and others are arrayed as defendants. The appellants - plaintiffs, after referring to the different proceedings amongst their family members have pleaded about initiation of the suit in O.S.No.61/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan, against the very same respondents. They have also referred to the applications filed in the earlier suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the subject land was notified way back in the year 1952. Thereafter, the appellants – plaintiffs have pleaded why they are entitled for declaration of title, despite such notification. It is contended inter alia that the acquisition notification was not implemented and that the acquisition, the notification issued in the year 1952 stood lapsed.
3. The respondents on entering appearance filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint contending that the suit was not maintainable and as such, liable to be rejected. The trial Court has accepted the application filled by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the plaint by its judgment dated 26.03.2018. The appeal filed by the appellants - claimants in R.A.No.31/2018 on the file of the 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, is also dismissed.
4. The Courts below have rejected the suit, and dismissed the appeal in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and another reported in (2013) 3 SCC 66. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has declared that the land acquisition is a complete Code and by necessary implication, the power of the civil Court to take cognizance under Section 9 of CPC has been excluded and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity or the legality of the notification issued under Section 4 and the person aggrieved by the issuance of the notifications for acquisition or any right thereafter, has to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In this case it is undisputed that the land in question is notified way back in the year 1952 and the cause of action is founded inter alia on the ground that the notification is not implemented and because it is not implemented, the acquisition has lapsed.
5. In the light of these pleadings in the plaint, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijesh Reddy’s case would squarely apply. As such, no substantial question of law is made out for interference in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2018 filed for temporary injunction does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE nvj