Back
High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench At Gulbarga)
N. KUMAR, J.
Hullappa
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Others
R.F.A. No. 2230 of 2006
Decided on : 10-02-2012
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - Section 10: [N.Kumar, J] Suit for declaration and for consequential reliefs - Judgment and Decree declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land - Finding of the Trial Court that no mandatory injunction can be granted - Appealed against - Grant of declaration without there being any document of title - Declaration granted on the basis of revenue documents, like RTC, Tax Paid Receipts, Mutation Extracts, etc., - Held, It is settled law that in a suit for declaration of title, unless the plaintiff produces the document of title, the Civil Court cannot grant declaration on the basis of the record of rights, tax paid receipts or some communication or letters. This fundamental principle of law has not been kept in mind by the Trial Court. A revenue record is not a document of title. Therefore, it is clear that mutation entries and the records evidencing the same are not documents of title. In other words, the revenue record is not a document of title. Mutation being only for fiscal purpose name the revenue record stands. The guiding factor in recording mutation is to show who is in possession. If the mutation entry is made in accordance with law, there is a presumption in favour of the person in whose name the mutation entry stands to the effect that he is in possession of the said property. That by itself is not sufficient to hold that he is the owner of the property. It is not proof of title. Therefore, the Civil Courts cannot declare title in a person on the basis of the aforesaid entries in the revenue records or on the basis of the revenue records. This is the settled legal position.
1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against that portion of the decree passed by the trial Court, declining to grant mandatory injunction.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.
3. The subject matter of the suit is land bearing Sy.No.29/2 totally measuring 5 acres 5 guntas out of which to the extent of 2 acres is acquired by the Government through defendants for construction of perculation tank at village Karanji, Taluka Aurad, District Bidar in the year 1997-98.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants are Public Officers. It was their bounden duty to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the private property, which is required for public purpose. The defendants being the responsible Public Officers are not sending requisition to the acquisition authorities for starting acquisition proceedings. The defendants have violated their legal obligation which they were bound to do, they have executed the work under the pretext of public duties. The promise given to the plaintiff that their land will be acquired under the process of law and will get compensation in respect of their acquired land is not complied with. So far more than two years have passed. The defendants deliberately violated the initiation of acquisition proceedings to pay the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Since the plaintiff is loosing income from the affected area of the land where perculation tank is constructed and because of acquisition the plaintiff is deprived of income from the suit land. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 21.09.1999 giving 60 days time for initiation of acquisition proceedings. The income of the plaintiff is decreased at Rs. 8,000-00 per acre and since the market value of the acquired land is Rs.80,000-00. The defendant neither replied to the notice nor initiated acquisition proceedings. Therefore he filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit land and for a direction to the defendants to initiate acquisition proceedings and for other consequential reliefs.
5. Defendants 2 and 3 have filed their written statement. They contend that plaintiff’s suit is false, frivolous and illegal, as such the same is not maintainable. However, they say that contents at para 1 of the plaint are not disputed. However the plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof in respect of his alleged title and ownership and possession to the extent of 2 acres of village Karanji. The plaintiff is not required to remind the defendants of their duties and obligations. The plaintiff himself has admitted in para 1 of the plaint that the suit land to the extent of 2 acres is acquired by the Government and as such, the question of sending requisition etc., does not arise. The land acquisition proceedings are now started and further steps like conducting survey work and submission or proposals are being submitted. They denied that they deliberately violated the acquisition proceedings for payment of compensation. They denied that the market value of the acquired land is Rs. 80,000-00 per acre. On the contrary, the market value of the suit land is not more than Rs. 15,000-00 per acre. The plaintiff has no cause of action. Therefore they want the suit to be dismissed.
6. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit land and is entitle for a declaration as sought for?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have acted negligently in not initiating land acquisition proceedings in respect of suit land?
3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mandatory injunction as sought for?
5. What order to decree?
7. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, examined himself as P.W-1 and produced seven documents, which are marked as Ex.P-1 to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
