Persons asserting ownership by adverse possession must demonstrate continuous, hostile, and exclusive possession, while failure to establish these elements invalidates claims.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant Nos.3(a) to 3(e) challenging the judgment and award dated 30.03.2013 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.108/1992 by the Court of XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and holding concurrent charge of Court of II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-17) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short] whereby, the reference filed under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC Act' for short) is partly allowed by holding that claimant No.1(a) and claimant No.2(e) are entitled to receive the corresponding compensation amount and rejected the claim of claimant Nos.3(a) to 3(e).

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The respondent Nos.20 and 21 in this appeal, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court i.e., the Special LAO for Defence and the Estate Officer, Defence have acquired the land measuring 3 acres 24 guntas of land in survey No.162/1 and 2 acres 09 guntas of land in survey No.163/2, totally measuring 5 acres 33 guntas of land situated at Mahadevapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore for the purpose of formation of High Tech park vide preliminary Notification dated 28.07.1988 and Final Notification dated 19.04.1989. It is submitted that possession of the said property in respect of survey No.162/1 was taken on 02.08.1989 and in respect of survey No.163/2, possession was taken on 24.03.1990 and the SLAO has determined the market value of the property at Rs.1,30,000/- per acre and deposited the total compensation amount of Rs.14,57,161/- before the Court below through transfer voucher bearing No.3176 dated 06.04.1992.

4. It is further submitted that originally there are six claimants and there is dispute with regard to entitlement of compensation. Therefore, the SLAO has referred the matter to the reference Court under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Act, as there is internal dispute between the claimants regarding entitlement of compensation.

5. Upon the reference made under aforesaid provision, the witnesses are examined as PW.1 to PW.15 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P128.

6. It is further submitted that the entire enquiry before the reference Court is in respect of deciding who are entitled to receive compensation. As such, the SLAO and the Estate Officer do not have any dispute about the same and the entire enquiry rests on deciding the rival claim of claimants and the reference Court after perusing the material on record has determined that claimant No.1(a) and claimant No.2(e) are entitled for compensation and rejected the claim of other claimants. During the pendency of LAC proceedings before the reference Court, the claimant Nos.1 and 3 died and their respective legal representatives are brought on record and now the dispute is between the legal representatives of deceased claimants No.1 and 3.

7. Further, the reference Court has assigned reasons that claimant No.1(a) to 1(f) have proved that they are in acquired possession over acquired lands and have perfected their title by way of adverse possession and determined that claimant No.1(a) to 1(f) are entitled for compensation.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of reference Court in rejecting the claim of claimants 3(a) to 3(e), they have preferred this appeal by urging various grounds and in consonance with the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants argued the a