Bangalore Development Authority Vs. N. Jayamma
Civil Law - Adverse Possession
Adverse Possession - Finding of Fact - Findings of the court below that only paper possession was taken and actual possession was not taken becomes meaningless - Respondent herein in the plaint, had herself admitted that the officials of the BDA had come to the suit property on April 24, 2001 and demolished the existing structure -This act of the BDA would amply demonstrate that there was no unhindered, peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land - Appeal allowed - Suit filed by the respondent in the trial court liable to be dismissed.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 (2)
Bangalore Development Authority Act, Section 27 - Adverse Possession - Equity - New plea - Submission on behalf of respondent that when the BDA itself is created for the purpose of formation of layouts and allotment of sites to the members of the public, the respondent should not be dispossessed when she is in continuous possession of the suit property - Once it is found that the respondent has not been able to prove title by adverse possession, no such aspects, not coming within the scope of the suit proceedings, can be looked into - Argument predicated on Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act or Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 were neither raised nor arise in the instant case - If the respondent, if at all, has any right to make claim on the aforesaid grounds, in any appropriate proceedings, she can do so, if permissible in law.
Topic(s)-Adverse Possession - Equity - Case not Made Out