The case is listed today to hear the arguments of

appellants 2 and 3. Sri.Sharath N., learned counsel

representing appellants 2 and 3 not present.

Hence, appeal of appellants 2 and 3 stands

dismissed for non-prosecution.

3

Heard Sri.M.R.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for

appellant No.1 and Sri.K.B.S.Manian, learned counsel for

respondent No.1.

Sri.M.R.Vijaya

Kumar,

learned

counsel

for

appellant No.1 has filed a memo and affidavit of

appellant No.1.

Memo reads as under:

"The advocate for the appellant No.1 prays that this

Hon'ble Court be pleased to dispose of the above

appeal

as

withdrawn

with

liberty

to

file

comprehensive suit in so far as to appellant No.1 is

concerned for the reasons stated to in the

accompanying affidavit in the interest of justice and

equity."

Affidavit reads as under:

"I V. Nagaraju S/o Venkatalakshmaiah, Aged about 54

years, Residing at House No. 4, Vaddarapalya village,

Kengeri Post, Benaglouru-60, the Appellant No. 1, do

hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I state that I am the 1^st appellant in the above

appeal and I am well conversant with the facts and

4

circumstances of the case and as such I am competent

to swear to this affidavit.

2. I state that, I am the absolute owner in possession

of the property bearing Sy. No. 42/3/B of Pattanagere

Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore to an extent of 1 acre

4 guntas having purchased from the family of Late

Kidiyappa, under the three registered sale deed dated

19-1-2006, 05-04-2007 and 13-05-2009 respectively

wherein the property in question was acquired by

Remco (BHEL) House Building Co-Operative Society

(hereinafter called as society).

The said entire acquisition proceedings were challenged

and quashed by this Hon'ble court. The said order was

upheld by the Apex court in its SLP filed by the society.

The Apex Court while dismissing the SLP(C) number

12535-37 /1991 on 21-02-1995 issued a direction

holding that "as a result of the quashing of the land

acquisition proceedings including the notifications in

question, the possession of the land shall be restored to

the respective land owners irrespective of the fact

weather they had challenged the acquisition of their

lands or not. A further direction has been given that on

restoration of the procession to the land owners, they

shall

refund

the amount

received

by

them

as

compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands."

3. It is further submitted that as directed by the Apex

court my vendor had deposited sum of Rs. 99,000/- by

5

way

of

DD

towards

the

amount

received

as

compensation. Accordingly the society also declared the

restoration of land to its original owners i.e., to my

vendors by their letter dated 09-10-2002 & 19-01-2004

and

indemnified

while

withdrawing

the

amount

deposited by my vendors on 23-08-2004.

4. I further affirm that to protect my property, I even

erected a Compound wall and a temporary shed. When

this being the fact the respondent No. 1 who has no

nexus or any right over the property in Sy.No.42/3B

alleged that he is one of the allotee from the REMCO

(BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., made

an attempt to encroach upon my property in order to

put-up unauthorized construction. Despite the protest

that his claim is not binding on me or his alleged

allotment is no-where situates in property of mine, i.e.,

in Sy. No. 42/3B (much less in Sy. No. 42/3B2 which is

converted as per the sketch).

5.When this being the fact the respondent No. 1 who is

claiming right over the suit schedule property has filed

a suit for permanent injunction and for such other relief

against me and other appellants herein and obtained

the judgement and decree against me and other

appellants in respect to suit schedule property by its

order dated 07/08/2013. Being aggrieved of the

judgement and decree dated 07/08/2013 passed in O.S

No 3520 of 2012, I had preferred the above appeal as

6

the same is exparte and obtained without providing me

a reasonable opportunit