These appeals are heard and disposed of together, as they are preferred against the same judgment.

2. The appellant in appeal no. RFA 1876/2014, namely, the Bangalore Development Authority, (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA’, for brevity), a statutory body constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA Act’, for brevity) was the plaintiff. The suit was filed for a declaratory relief that the property bearing survey no.10/17 of Jarakabandekaval, Yeshwanthpura hobli, Bangalore north taluk measuring 29 guntas, presently bearing Industrial site no.86/G formed by the BDA, which was more fully described in the Schedule to the plaint, was never withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the final notification dated 13.4.1964, issued under the provisions of Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1884.

And also to declare that a judgment and decree passed in civil suit bearing O.S.No.554/1981, by the court of the 17th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dated 25.9.1992, as not binding the plaintiff, BDA.

And for injunctory reliefs restraining defendants no.1 to 7 from interfering with the said property.

3. It was the case of the plaintiff that before its constitution in the year 1976, its predecessorin –interest was the City Improvement Trust Board, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CITB’, for brevity), also a statutory body which was engaged in the planned development of Bangalore City. It was stated that in order to form and establish an Industrial layout, known as Industrial Suburb, II Stage, it was proposed to acquire lands situated around Jharakabandekaval, Yelahanka, Bangalore North taluk, including the land bearing survey no.10/17. A notification dated 13.4.1964 was said to have been issued under the provisions of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1988, ( Hereinafter referred to as ‘the MLA Act’, for brevity). According to the revenue records, the said land bearing survey no. 10/17 is said to have been found in the name of Chikkavenkatappa, son of Pillavenkatappa, as the Khatedar. It was stated that notices under Section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898, (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act, 1898’, for brevity) having been issued, it is stated that the widow of Chikkavenkatappa had entered appearance and is said to have petitioned seeking the notified land be reconveyed in her favour.

However, an award having been passed, vide award dated 14.7.1965, the award amount was said to have been kept in a revenue deposit for the benefit of the khatedars. It was also stated that after issuing award notices, physical possession is said to have been taken over by the CITB on 7.10.1965.

It was stated that the above and other lands so acquired were said to have been substantially put to use and the Scheme, under which the acquisition proceedings had been initiated, was substantially implemented.

In the year 1976, the plaintiff having been constituted, the powers and functions of the erstwhile CITB were said to have been exercised and performed by the BDA. It is stated that in the above background, the BDA is said to have allotted the suit schedule property on a Lease –cumSale basis in favour of one Narayana Raju. And a registered lease deed is said to have been executed as on 26.11.1977 in favour of the said allottee. The said allottee having died, he was represented in the suit by defendants 8 to 10, his legal representatives.

It is said that one Muniyamma, claiming to be the widow of Chikkavenkatappa, as already stated, is said to have sought for reconveyance of the land in her favour. It is stated that in response to the same the plaintiff had issued an endorsement dated 27.10.1980, to the effect that the erstwhile CITB had, by a Resolution dated 16.1.1974, recommended the denotification of the suit schedule property. However, it was the plaintiff’s case that there were no further steps taken in that regard, to complete the formality. The property in question, ho