V. Srinivasaraju And Ors vs M/S. Bharat Electronics Ltd. & Ors

Appellants 1 to 6 and respondent No. 2 were plaintiffs (that is plaintiff Nos. 1, 3 to 7 and Plaintiff No.2 in O.S. No. 1831/1989 on the file of the Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore. Respondents 1 and 3 were defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit for declaration of title and possession in regard to an extent of 2 acres and 12 guntas of land in Survey No. 101/2 of Kodigehalli village , Bangalore North Taluk. For convenience the appellants and respondent No. 2 will together be referred to as plaintiffs, first respondent as `BEL' and third respondent as `LAO'. 2

After such purchase, the competent authority passed an order under section 6(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short `Requisition Act') specifying Anjaneya Gowda as the person to whom possession of Sy.No.101 (5 A 12 G) should be delivered in pursuance of Central Government's decision to release the land from requisition with effect from 1.8.1962. Varadaraju accordingly accepted 3 possession of the said land and his name was entered as the owner thereof in the revenue records -- index of land and record of rights. On 24.7.1965, Survey No. 101 was phodded and sub-divided into Sy.101/1 measuring 5 A 17 G belonging to BEL and 101/2 measuring 5 acres 12 guntas belonging to V.Vardaraju. On taking actual physical possession Vardaraju got the land measured and got boundary stones fixed by the Revenue Department and he was thus in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the entire 5 A and 12 G by putting up a fencing all around the land. When matter stood thus, on 4.12.1965, BEL which acquired a huge track of land including Survey No. 101/1 measuring 5 A 17 G, through its officials removed the fencing put up by V.Varadaraju and started enclosing a part of his land (on the southern side) by putting up a compound wall.

2.2) Varadaraju filed a suit for injunction in O.S. No. 700 of 1965. The said suit was dismissed by judgment dated 27.9.1977 holding that the said Varadaraju had failed to prove that he was in lawful possession of the suit property. In the course of the said judgment the learned Munsiff observed that Varadaraju having failed to prove his possession of the suit schedule property, he was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant BEL and that he may, if so advised, bring a separate action for 4 re-establishing his title to 5 A 12 G and seek consequential relief of obtaining possession, to the suit land or any portion thereof, which is not in his possession. Thereafter the said Varadaraju died, and the plaintiffs as his legal heirs filed an appeal (R.A. No. 129 of 1977) against the dismissal of the injunction suit and the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation on 7.6.1983.

5. Feeling aggrieved, BEL filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court after exhaustive consideration of the evidence, held that plaintiffs had failed to prove that BEL, a defence establishment, had encroached or came into possession of any land which was in the possession of the plaintiffs at any point of time. Consequently the High Court allowed the first appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the 6 suit as a speculative litigation. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal by special leave.

11. The appeal is therefore dismissed.