A critical reminder of the intricate relationships between land ownership, cooperative societies, and state acquisition for public projects as Members of a Cooperative Housing Society, who had purchased land from the from the Society and carried out construction thereon, enjoying long peaceful possession whereof, have not only lost their land but also were declared disentitled for any compensation in the event of the acquisition of the land for planned development i.e., Metro Rail Project.
Brief Factual Background
The suit property was situated in a village which was an ‘Inam village‘ and the land stood vested in the State in terms of the provisions contained in Mysore (Personnel & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 w.e.f. 01.02.1959.
One B.C. Bubblakshmamma was granted occupancy rights over the suit property by the competent authority vide order dared 09.12.1969. Although the initial mutation was sanctioned in her name, the Tehsildar, following an on-site inspection, adjusted the records to reflect the actual area in her possession. As a result, a revised mutation order dated 20.05.1972 was passed, updating the record in her name.
The Petitioner acquired the suit property from Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma through a registered sale deed dated 10.06. 1975 and attempted to take forcible possession from members of Defendant i.e., REMCO Industrial Workers House Building Cooperative Society Limited.
A survey was conducted by the Police based on a complaint moved by the Plaintiff which indicated that the claims of Defendant Society over suit property are unfounded. This led to filing of a suit seeking permanent injunction. Although, temporary injunction was initially granted, the possession of the suit property remained with Defendant Society.
In such circumstances, Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title over the suit property and the consequential reliefs of mandatory injunction and possession sometime in 1980.
This suit was partly decreed on 30.10.1986 declaring the title of Plaintiff but the relief of possession was dismissed on the ground that the sale deed did not detail the land in question as the declaration of possession of Smt. B.C. Subbalakshmamma was 1 acre and 12 guntas. Suit of declaration for recovery of possession from out of the scheduled property which measured 1 acre and 12 guntas was to be resorted to by the Plaintiff.
Both the parties preferred Regular First Appeal respectively. RFA of the Plaintiff was allowed and the suit was decreed wherein RFA of the Defendant Society was dismissed.
Defendant Society preferred Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was allowed by Order dated 28.08.2003. Matter was remanded to the Trial Court with directions to consider the effect of the order granting occupancy rights in favour of one Muniyappa on the subsequent grant dated 09.12.1979. The Court further ordered the Trial Court to identify the land covered by both grants by framing necessary issues and providing an additional opportunity to both parties.
The remanded suit was decreed on 31.03.2008 and Plaintiff was declared as the owner of the scheduled property to the extent of 1 acre and 3 guntas. He was also held entitled to get possession of the same.
Some of the Defendants preferred appeals against this judgment and decree before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru wherein Defendant Society preferred RFA.
The High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2014 upheld the judgment passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Defendant Society. The High Court set aside the judgment and decree so far as it pertained to the land allotted to other Defendants declaring that the site allotted to other Defendants was unrelated to the scheduled suit property. High Court also determined that some of the Defendants were entitled to receive 30 per cent of the compensation for the acquired portion, proportionate to the sites allotted to them in the suit property. This amount was to be distributed proportionately among these private Defendants. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed their appeals based on the above terms.
Dissatisfied with the above Defendants approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Grounds Raised by Defendants
Grant of relief equal to 30 per cent of the amount of compensation payable in respect of the sites which were allotted to the private Defendants by asserting that for the fault of Defendant Society cannot be held liable, nor can be forced to share the amount of compensation.
The liability, if any, would be of Defendant No.1-Society of which these private Defendants were members.
Possession and construction, if any, carried out by these private Defendants was at their own risk and peril.
After the High Court had held the Plaintiff to be the absolute lawful owner of the suit property, being entitled to full rights over the same, these private Defendants cannot be held entitled to receive compensation payable in respect of the sites built on the suit property. Once it has been held that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property merely because these private Defendants are in possession of the sites built on the scheduled property, they would not be entitled to any compensation for the land acquired for the Metro Rail Project.
Compensation was neither asserted nor claimed by these private Defendants at any stage and, in fact, the same was not even argued what to say of taking a ground in the appeal which has been preferred by the said private Defendants before the High Court. Under such circumstances, a portion of the compensation made payable for the acquisition of the suit property of which the Appellant/Plaintiff is the absolute owner, is unacceptable and unsustainable in law.
Findings
1. no claim whatsoever has been projected either in the appeal before the High Court or before any other competent authority for the grant of compensation for the land having been acquired.
2. The judgment as has been passed by the High Court affirming the ownership and title of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff has not been challenged by any of these private Defendants.
3. The said judgment and the findings recorded therein have attained finality.
4. In the absence of any claim with regard to their entitlement to compensation for the land acquired, the relief granted by the High Court in the appeal is not sustainable.
5. Given the lack of pleadings, evidence on record, and submissions made at the time of hearing before the High Court, the judgment passed by it granting 30 per cent of the amount payable by way of compensation in respect of the ten sites in possession of the private Defendants, deserves to be set aside.
6. /Plaintiff is entitled to receive the full amount payable in respect of acquisition of the suit property for the Metro Rail Project.
Author’s Note: This legal battle underscores the importance of clear documentation and legal processes in property transactions, as well as the necessity for individuals to assert their rights in a timely and formal manner. As urban development continues to expand, cases like this will play a vital role in shaping the legal landscape surrounding land ownership and compensation in India.
[Lakshmesh M. Versus P. Rajalakshmi (Dead by LRs) and Ors. – Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 – Decided on 11 Sept. 2024]