LexBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus N. JAYAMMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 583 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A v. N. JAYAMMA (Civil Appeal No. 2238 of2016) MARCH 10, 2016 B [A.K. SIKRI AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Adverse Possession ~Suit for declaration of title perfected by adverse possession - Filed by purchaser of the land which was already acquired under Land Acquisition Act - However, actual possession whereof remained with the original owner - Suit decreed C - Decree affirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: Plaintiff had herself admitted that the officials of the appellant-Authority (acquisition beneficiary) came to the suit property and demolished the structure - Thus the possession was not unhindered, peaceful and continuous - Plaintiff failed to prove title by adverse possession - Suit liable to be dismissed. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The respondent-plaintiff had herself admitted that the officials of the appellant-Authority bad come to the suit property and demolished the existing structure. This act of the Authority would amply demonstrate that there was no unhindered, peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land. [Para 22) [599-B-CJ 2. The plea of equity that when the Authority 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, would not be the relevant considerations in the present case. 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. [Para 23) [599-D-E] M. Venkatesh & Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (2015) 10 Scale 27; P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. v. Revamma & Ors. 2007 (5) SCR 491: (2007) 6 sec 59 - relied on. 583 E F G H 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R. A John B. James & Ors. v. Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. ILR 2000 KAR 4134 - held inapplicable. UP. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd. 1996 (1) SCR 683 : (1996) 3 SCC 124; Ajay Kishan Singhal v. B Union of India 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 319: (1996) 10 sec 721; Mahavir & Am: V. Rural Institute, Amravati & Anr. 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 421 : (1995) 5 SCC 335; Gian Chand v. Gopala & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 528; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors. 2008 (10) SCR 1012: (2008) 9 SCC 177; Tika Ram v. C State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 (14) SCR 905 : (2009) 10 SCC 689; Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam (D} by Lrs. 1996 (2) SCR 881: (1996) 2 SCC 634; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1998 (2) SCR 339 : (1998) 4 SCC 387; Karnataka Board of Wakf v. D Government of India 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 255: (2004) 10 SCC 779; Rama Shankar & Anr. v. Om Prakash Likhdhari & Ors. (2013) 6 ADJ 119; Ba/want Narayan Bhagde v. MD. Bhagwat 1975 (0) Suppl. SCR 250 : (1976) 1 SCC 700; NTPC Ltd. v. Mahesh Dutta 2009 (10) SCR 1084 : (2009) 8 SCC 339; Raghbir Singh E Sehrawat v. State of Haryana 2011 (14 ) SCR 1113 : (2012) 1 sec 792 - referred to. Case Law Reference (2015) 10 Scale 27 relied on Para7 F 1975 (0) Suppl. SCR 250 referred to Para 13 2009 (10) SCR 1084 referred to Para 13 2011 (14) SCR 1113 referred to Para 13 1 ?96 (1) SCR 683 referred to Para 18 G 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 319 referred to Para 18 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 421 referred to Para 18 (1995) 5 sec 528 referred to Para 18 2008 (10) SCR 1012 referred to Para 18 H 2009 (14 ) SCR 905 referred to Para 18 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. N. JAYAMMA 585 1996 ( 2) SCR 881 referred to Para 18 A 1998 ( 2 ) SCR 339 referred to Para 18 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 255 referred to Para 18 2007 (5) SCR 491 relied on Para 20 (2013) 6 ADJ 119 referred to Para 21 B ILR 2000 KAR 4134 held inapplicable Para 22 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2238 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2011 of the High Court c of Kamataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No. 1279 of 2006. S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Advs. for the Appellant. P. Vishwanath Shetty, Sr. Adv., P. Venkat Reddy, Mahesh Thakur, Prashant Kr. Tyagi, Advs. for the Respondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. The instant appeal, which has travelled to this Court, h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.