Both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment

and decree dated 15.10.2019 passed in O.S.No.138/2013 by

the XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore city.

The said suit was filed by the respondents – plaintiffs for

4

declaration and other reliefs. In the said suit, the State of

Karnataka and the jurisdictional Tahsildar were arrayed as

defendants 1 and 2, while the BDA and SLAO, BDA were

arrayed as defendants 3 and 4. By the impugned judgment

and decree, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the

plaintiffs against the defendants. RFA No.308/2021 is

preferred by the State, while RFA No.449/2020 is preferred by

the BDA.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to

as the plaintiffs, State and BDA.

3. The plaintiffs filed the instant suit for declaration that

they are entitled to compensation in respect of the suit

schedule property bearing Sy.No.56/1A of Haralukunte village,

Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 1 acre 31

guntas and for a direction to the defendants to pay the

compensation amount to the plaintiffs together with interest

and also for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2

sites under the incentive site scheme and for a consequential

5

direction to the defendants to allot and convey the said sites in

favour of the plaintiffs and for other reliefs.

4. It was contended that the plaintiffs were the heirs of

late A.N.Janardhan Reddy, who owned and possessed total

extent of 1 acre 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.56/1A, out of

which, he sold 4 guntas in favour of one Obedulla under a

registered sale deed dated 27.11.1978, pursuant to which, he

retained title and possession over the remaining 1 acre 31

guntas and upon his demise on 13.04.1990, the plaintiffs

became entitled to the suit schedule property. Meanwhile, the

defendants having acquired the schedule property by issuing

preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984, corrigendum dated

22.07.1986, final notification dated 15.12.1984, an award

dated 17.06.1987 was passed by them. However, the plaintiffs

did not receive the compensation amount from the defendants

and several requests and representations were made by them

including applications dated 13.08.2006, 11.02.2007 and

26.02.2009,

under

which,

the

plaintiffs

sought

for

compensation together with interest and also 2 sites under the

6

incentive scheme of the defendants. The plaintiffs filed

W.P.No.2170/2010 before this Court which was disposed of

on 10.11.2010 reserving liberty in favour of the plaintiffs to

take steps to ventilate their grievances for compensation and

allotment of sites under the incentive scheme. Subsequently,

the plaintiffs filed one more petition in W.P.No.8594/2013

which was dispose of by this Court on 10.03.2014 reiterating

the earlier liberty and directions granted in favour of the

plaintiffs and by directing them to seek further remedies in the

pending suit.

5. The plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule

property is classified as ‘A’ kharab land, which is owned and

possessed by the plaintiffs, who are entitled to compensation

together with interest as well as to two sites under the

incentive scheme from the defendants and since the

defendants did not comply with the repeated requests and

demands of the plaintiffs, they filed the instant suit seeking

appropriate reliefs.

7

6. The defendants 1 and 2 – State did not file their

written statement nor contest the suit. The defendants 3 and

4 – BDA filed the written statement after the matter was

posted for judgment and consequently, the same was not

received on record.

7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, 1^st plaintiff examined

himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P43 were marked. The

defendants neither cross-examined PW-1 nor adduced any

oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed

the following points for consideration:-

(i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that their father,

A.N.Janardhana Reddy is the title holder and was in

possessi