Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8868

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R. Nataraj, J
SMT. MITRA W/O. PANDURANG KALGUTKAR, JOHN S/O. RUZAR CARVALHO, SABASTIN W/O. MATHESH CARVALHO, JEEVAN S/O. RATNAKAR PEDNEKAR, UFM SRI MOHANDAS S/O. RAMA SALASKAR, ANAND RAO S/O. MANGESH TAMES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA, PORT OFFICER, KARWAR PORT – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 100923/2023 | Regular Second Appeal No. 100833/2023 | Regular Second Appeal No. 100835/2023 | Regular Second Appeal No. 100878/2023 | Regular Second Appeal No. 100920/2023 | Regular Second Appeal No. 100931/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI K. L. PATIL
For the Respondents: SMT. VIDYAVATI M. KPTTURSHETTAR

The court affirmed that once land is acquired for public purpose, claims of adverse possession or injunction by previous occupants cannot stand, as they have relinquished rights through compensation.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Dismissal of suits for declaration of ownership and injunction concerning property acquired for public use. Claim of adverse possession rejected; Plaintiffs failed to establish their possession and rights post-acquisition. (Paras 7, 11, 13)

(B) Land Acquisition - The plaintiffs claimed they were in settled possession of properties acquired for development of a port but failed to prove legal ownership or adverse possession. Court held possession post-1971 was not justified.

(C) Finding of the trial court that plaintiffs were given compensation for the land acquired was upheld, and thus the right to claim any injunction against dispossession was denied.

(D) The appeals were dismissed but granted time until 31.01.2025 for vacating the premises. (E) Parties involved include several plaintiffs and the State as the respondent. (F) No dissenting opinion noted.

Table of Content
1. plaintiffs are challenging land acquisition and asserting rights. (Para 2 , 3)
2. court's initial findings on possession and claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court reviews legal arguments and prior proceedings. (Para 10 , 11)
4. final decision on dismissal with provision for time to vacate. (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT

RSA No.100923/2023 is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S No.196/2020 challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2022 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Karwar dismissing the suit as well as the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karwar in R.A No.6/2022, by which, the first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

RSA No.100833/2023 is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S No.193/2020 challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2022 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Karwar dismissing the suit as well as the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karwar in R.A No.02/2022, by which, the first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

RSA No.100835/2023 is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S No.198/2020 challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2022 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Karwar dismissing the suit as well as the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karwar in R.A No.03/2022, by which, the first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

RSA No.100878/2023 is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S No.194/2020 challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2022 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Karwar dismissing the suit as well as the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karwar in R.A No.05/2022, by which, the first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

RSA No.100920/2023 is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S No.192/2020 challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2022 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Karwar dismissing the suit as well as the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karwar in R.A No.04/2022, by which, the first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

RSA No.100931/2023 is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S No.195/2020 challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2022 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Karwar dismissing the suit as well as the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karwar in R.A No.07/2022, by which, the first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

2. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suits for declaration of their ownership and for perpetual injunction in respect of the house property where they are residing. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was owned by their ancestors. In terms of a preliminary notification dated 29.01.1962, the State Government initiated acquisition of their land on the ground that the same was required for development of the Karwar Port. This was followed by a final notification dated 04.03.1964. An award was passed on 31.03.1971. However, the plaintiffs claimed that no steps were taken to take over actual possession of the suit land and no steps were taken to evict them from their residences. The plaintiffs claimed that they are in possession and occupation of the same and were in settled possession of the property that was acquired. The plaintiffs claimed that they had filed several writ petitions and writ appeals challenging the acquisition which were all dismissed. Thereupon, the defendant No.2 issued a notice dated 13.11.2020, calling upon them to hand over possession of the suit property by or before 30.11.2020, failing which, it threatened to take forcible possession of the property. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document