101/1 measuring 5 A 17 G, through its officials removed the fencing put up by V.Varadaraju and started enclosing a part of his land on the southern side by putting up a companypound wall.
On 24.7.1965, Survey No.
Feeling aggrieved, BEL filed an appeal before the High Court.
For companyvenience the appellants and respondent No.
Thereafter the said Varadaraju died, and the plaintiffs as his legal heirs filed an appeal R.A. No.
101 was phodded and sub divided into Sy.101/1 measuring 5 A 17 G belonging to BEL and 101/2 measuring 5 acres 12 guntas belonging to Vardaraju.
After such purchase, the companypetent authority passed an order under section 6 2 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 for short Requisition Act specifying Anjaneya Gowda as the person to whom possession of Sy.
No.101 5 A 12 G should be delivered in pursuance of Central Governments decision to release the land from requisition with effect from 1.8.1962.
Therefore when land which was the subject matter of sale was released from requisition in the year 1962, Varadaraju companyld number have got physical possession of entire 5 A 12 G in Sy.
This would mean that the alleged encroachment was number in 1965, but long prior to 1.12.1961 when the land was purchased by Varadaraju.
No.101, alongwith other lands were acquired for BEL on 25.2.1954.
One Anjaneya Gowda who was the owner of the remaining extent of Sy.
Nor does plaintiffs claim that BEL released any land after 1.12.1961.
101 acquired for and belonging to BEL under a registered sale deed dated 1.12.1961.
The High Court after exhaustive companysideration of the evidence, held that plaintiffs had failed to prove that BEL, a defence establishment, had encroached or came into possession of any land which was in the possession of the plaintiffs at any point of time.
No.101 sold to Varadaraju was under requisition and therefore only symbolic possession was delivered to him.
Varadaraju accordingly accepted possession of the said land and his name was entered as the owner thereof in the revenue records index of land and record of rights.
121 Hanumantha garden lane, and South by portion of Survey No.
On taking actual physical possession Vardaraju got the land measured and got boundary stones fixed by the Revenue Department and he was thus in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the entire 5 A and 12 G by putting up a fencing all around the land.
The trial companyrt, after companysidering the evidence, passed a judgment dated 11.8.1995.
An extent of 5 acres 17 guntas in Sy.
What is significant is that the said sale states that a portion of the land sold to Varadaraju was in the unauthorized occupation of BEL.
The report and evidence of the Commissioner appointed by the High Court was also found to be of numberassistance as the sketch prepared by him mentioned only the area that in the occupation of the plaintiff as 2 A 37 G, but did number give the area in the occupation of BEL.
1831/1989 on the file of the Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore.
2 will together be referred to as plaintiffs, first respondent as BEL and third respondent as LAO.
No.101, sold to V. Varadaraju, father of the plaintiffs an extent of 5 acres and 12 guntas of land in Survey No.
101 bounded on the East by Railway line and Survey No.100, West by Survey No.
No.101 of Kodigehalli measures 10 acres 29 guntas of which 24 guntas was phut Karab .
When matter stood thus, on 4.12.1965, BEL which acquired a huge track of land including Survey No.
At the time of such purchase, the land sold was under requisition and therefore only symbolic possession was given to their father and number actual possession.
Admittedly BEL did number surrender any land to Varadaraju after 1.12.1961.
101/2 of Kodigehalli village , Bangalore North Taluk.
2 were plaintiffs that is plaintiff Nos.
The case of plaintiffs as per the plaint averments and evidence of plaintiffs is as follows 2.1 Sy.
1, 3 to 7 and Plaintiff No.2 in O.S. No.
102, North by Survey No.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Appellants 1 to 6 and respondent No.
Respondents 1 and 3 were defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit for declaration of title and possession in regard to an extent of 2 acres and 12 guntas of land in Survey No.
The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal by special leave.
