LexM. VENKATESH AND ORS. versus COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015] 11S.C.R.454 A M. VENKATESH AND ORS. v. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY B (Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2015) SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR, R.K. AGRAWAL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) c Property laws: Vacant land - Claim for settled possession - Entitlement for- Held: Not entitled - Question of establishing settled possession does not arise in relation to the properties that already stood cleared of any structures D by demolition of whatever stood on the same. Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Safe of property post issue of preliminary notification is void and non-est giving to the vendee the limited right to claim compensation and no more. E Adverse possession: Proof of - Held: Is proved only when possession is peaceful, open, continuous and hostile. Disposing of the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1. Once the High Court recorded a finding that the property was vacant as on the date of the filing of the suitthere was no question of the plaintiffs claiming settled possession of the said property assuming the view taken in John B. James case was otherwise legally G sound since the so called settled possession of the appellants in RFA No.911 of 2002 stood vacated from the suit schedule property, no prayer for injunction as set out in the petition filed by the appellants in those appeals could help them for an injunction issues only to protect ~ H ,_ 454 M. VENKATESH v. COMMNR., BANGALORE DEV. 455 AUTHORITY what is in lawful possession of the plaintiffs. Injunction A could not be claimed when plaintiffs stand dispossessed from the suit property prior to the filing of the suit. The question of establishing settled possession did not, therefore, arise in relation to the properties that already stood cleared of any structures by demolition of B whatever stood on the same. The High Court was, in that view, justified in setting aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. [Para 12) [464-B-F] John B. James and Ors. v. Bangalore Development Authority (2001) 1 KarLJ 364 - approved. c 2. The respondents claim to have purchased the o suit property in terms of a sale deed dated 22nd August, 1990, i.e. long after the issue of the preliminary notification published in July 1984. The sale in such cases is void and non-est in the eyes of law giving to the Vendee the limited right to claim compensation and no E more. [Para 13) [464-G-H; 465-A] U.P. Jal Nigam v. Katra Properties Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 1170: 1996 (1) SCR 683; Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2677: 1996 F (4) Suppl. SCR 319; Mahavir and Anr. v. Rural Institute, Amravati and Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 335:1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 421; Gian Chand v. Gopala and Ors. (1995) 5·scc 528; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors. (2008) 9 G SCC 177: 2008 (10) SCR 1012; Tika Ram v. State of U.P. (2009) 10 SCC 689; Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam (dead) by Lrs. AIR 1996 SC 3377: 1996 (2) SCR 402; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. H 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A v. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1608: 1998 (2) SCR 339 - relied on. 3. The High Court has remained oblivious of the principle of adverse possession. All that the High Court 8 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 C 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 erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-BOA. The fact that the plaintiffs had not D 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 E vested in the BOA. (Para 19] (469-G-H; 470-A-C] Kamataka Board of Wakfv. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 255; Saroop Singh v. Banta (2005) 8 SCC 330: 2005 (4) Suppl. F SCR 253; Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 sec 639: 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 638; Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Ba/want (1995) 2 SCC 543: 1995 (1) SCR 88- relied on. G Case Law Referen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.