Case: Bangalore Development Authority Vs. N.Jayamma

possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all." 19) After taking note of the principle of law relating to adverse possession in the aforesaid manner, this Court commented about the erroneous approach of the High Court in the following manner: ?19. The Courts below have not seen the plaintiff-respondents claim from the above perspectives. The High Court has, in particular, remained oblivious of the principle enunciated in the decisions to which we have referred herein above. All that the High Court has found in favour of the plaintiffs is that their possession is established. That, however, does not conclude the controversy. The question is not just whether the plaintiffs were in possession, but whether they had by being in adverse possession for the statutory period of 12 years perfected their title. That question has neither been adverted to nor answered in the judgment impugned in this appeal. Such being the case the High Court, in our opinion, erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-BDA. The fact that the plaintiffs had not and could not possibly establish their adverse possession over the suit property should have resulted in dismissal of the suit for an unauthorised occupant had no right to claim relief that would perpetuate his illegal and unauthorised occupation of property that stood vested in the BDA.? 20) In addition to the discussion contained in M. Venkatesh case noted above, we may also add what was held in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. v. Revamma & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 59 ): ?5. Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostile. (See Downing v. Bird; Arkansas Commemorative Commission v. City of Little Rock; Monnot v. Murphy; and City of Rock Springs v. turm).? 21) In Rama Shankar & Anr. v. Om Prakash Likhdhari & Ors. (2013) 6 ADJ 119 ), the Allahabad High Court has observed as under: ?21. The principle of adverse possession and its consequences wherever attracted has been recognized in the statute dealing with limitation. The first codified statute dealing with limitation came to be enacted in 1840. The Act 14 of 1840 in fact was an enactment applicable in England but it was extended to the territory of Indian continent which was under the reign of East India Company, by an authority of Privy Council in the East India Company v. Oditchurn Paul, 1849 (Cases in the Privy Council on Appeal from the East Indies) 43. xx xx xx 23. The law of Prescription prescribes the period at the expiry of which not only the judicial remedy is barred but a substantive right is acquired or extinguished. A prescription, by which a right is acquired, is called an acquisitive prescription. A prescription by which a right is extinguished is called extinctive prescription. The distinction between the two is not of much practical importance or substance. The extinction of right of one party is often the mode of acquiring it by another. The right extinguished is virtually transferred to the person who claims it by prescription. Prescription implies with the thing prescribed for is the property of another and that it is enjoyed adversely to that other. In this respect it must be distinguished from acquisition by mere occupation as in the case of res nullius. The acquisition in such cases does not depend upon occupation for any particular length of time.? 22) The aforesaid analysis of the judgment in M. Venkatesh (supra) amply shows that it is squarely and directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the first instance, it shows that reliance of the respondent herein on the judgment of John B. James (supra) is of no avail. It would further demonstrate that the findings of the court below that only paper possession was taken and actual possession was not taken also becomes meaningless as the manner of taking possession in the instant case was also identical. In addition, it is pertinent that the respondent herein, in para 10 of the plaint, had herself admitted that the officials of the BDA had come to the suit property on April 24, 2001 and demolished the existing structure. This act of the BDA would amply demonstrate that there was no unhindered, peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land. 23) Learned counsel for the respondent had raised the plea of equity. He has also submitted that when the BDA itself is created for the purpose of formation of layouts and allotment of sites to the members of the public, the respondent should not be dispossessed when she is in continuous possession of the suit property. However, these would not be the relevant considerations in the present case as we cannot forget that the present appeal arises out of civil proceedings filed in the form of a suit by the respondent and once it is found that the respondent has not been able to prove title by adverse possession, no such aspects, not coming within the scope of the suit proceedings, can be looked into. Insofar as the argument predicated on Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act or Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are concerned, again these issues were neither raised nor arise in the instant case. If the respondent, if at all, has any right to make claim on the aforesaid grounds, in any appropriate proceedings, she can do so, if permissible in law. We may clarify that this Court has not gone into these issues and, therefore, has not made any comments on the merits of such pleas raised by the respondent.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16) In M. Venkatesh (supra) as well, land was acquired by the State Government of Karnataka and given at the disposal of the BDA. Preliminary Notification was issued on July 17, 1984 and final Notification dated November 28, 1986 was published on December 25, 1986. Determination of amount of compensation payable to the landowners having been approved by the competent authority on August 21, 1986, the BDA claimed that possession of the land was taken over from the landowners and handed over to the engineering section of the BDA by drawing a possession Mahazar on November 06, 1987. A Notification under Section 16(2) of the Act was also published in the Karnataka Gazette dated July 04, 1991 which, according to the BDA, signified that the land in question stood vested with the BDA free from all encumbrances whatsoever. Here also, after taking of the aforesaid steps by the BDA, the original land owners of the acquired land sold the said land to different persons after carving out the sites/plots. When the actual possession was sought to be taken, the said subsequent purchasers (like the respondent in the instant appeal) filed writ petitions in the High Court. Their writ petitions, along with the writ petition of the respondent herein and some others, were the subject matter of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in John B. Jamess case (supra). Like the respondent herein, the individuals/subsequent purchasers in the case of M. Venkatesh (supra) were also relegated to the civil court giving them permission to file the suit if they were claiming adverse possession. Five such suits were the subject matter of the judgment in M. Venkatesh (supra).The aforesaid analysis of the judgment in M. Venkatesh (supra) amply shows that it is squarely and directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the first instance, it shows that reliance of the respondent herein on the judgment of John B. James (supra) is of no avail. It would further demonstrate that the findings of the court below that only paper possession was taken and actual possession was not taken also becomes meaningless as the manner of taking possession in the instant case was also identical. In addition, it is pertinent that the respondent herein, in para 10 of the plaint, had herself admitted that the officials of the BDA had come to the suit property on April 24, 2001 and demolished the existing structure. This act of the BDA would amply demonstrate that there was no unhindered, peaceful and continuous possession of the suitas the argument predicated on Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act or Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are concerned, again these issues were neither raised nor arise in the instant case. If the respondent, if at all, has any right to make claim on the aforesaid grounds, in any appropriate proceedings, she can do so, if permissible in law. We may clarify that this Court has not gone into these issues and, therefore, has not made any comments on the merits of such pleas raised by the