Full Judgment
Subhash B. Adi, J.
1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21-4-2007 in O.S. No. 6743 of 1999. Suit is for permanent injunction.
2. Case of the plaintiff is that, he is the GPA holder for the alleged owner of the property bearing house Nos. 17 and 18, Khatha No. 87/3 at Kothanur Village, Uttarhalli Hobli, measuring East-West 40 feet x North-South 60 feet and the plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit schedule property and further alleged that, the respondent is trying to demolish and dispossess the plaintiff.
3. Respondent-defendant filed written statement inter alia stating that, the land in question and other lands were notified for acquisition and Ex. D. 1-preliminary notification, Ex. D. 2-final notification were issued, as per Ex. D. 3-award was passed, as per Ex. D. 4-Mahazar for taking possession was drawn, as per Exs. D. 5 and D. 6-Mahazar was prepared by the engineering section and thereafter a layout was formed and the sites were allotted to the respective allottees and further submitted that, the plaintiff has no right to claim injunction.
4. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence found that, the land has been acquired and the layout has been formed by the BDA and further found that, the plaintiff has put up unauthorised shed in the property of the BDA and also found that, the plaintiff has not produce the iota of evidence to show his right to put up such construction.
5. However, the Trial Court noticing the unauthorised structure having been put up by the plaintiff, directed the BDA to issue notice giving one month's time to plaintiff and take possession. It is this judgment and decree, has been called in question by the plaintiff.
6. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, the plaintiff is in a settled possession and he cannot be dispossessed without recourse to law. In this regard, he submitted that, he has put up structure in the suit schedule property and has been in possession and has produced the photographs and application given to the BDA.
6.1 He also submitted that, since it is an unauthorised construction, he had made an application for regularisation of such unauthorised construction before the Screening Committee and Screening Committee has rejected the said application and he has filed an appeal. He strongly relied on the Mahazar produced by the BDA, inter alia stating that, the possession has not been taken by the BDA. Once the possession is not taken, the respondent-defendant cannot dispossess the appellant.
7. It is not in dispute that, the plaintiff is only a GPA holder of the alleged owner and it is also not in dispute that, the BDA has acquired land by issuing preliminary notification, final notification and has passed the award. In pursuance of the award, the possession has also been taken on the Mahazar. What is noted in the Mahazar is, the plaintiff had filed writ petition before this Court and in the writ petition there was an interim order and in view of the same, the possession was not taken. It has come in the evidence that, the said writ petition is disposed of inter alia permitting the plaintiff to approach the Screening Committee for regularisation of his unauthorised construction. It has come in the evidence of the plaintiff that, the Screening Committee has also rejected the said application and there is no interim order protecting his possession.
8. When the land is acquired and the possession is taken, the land vests in the State. Even if the plaintiff puts up unauthorised construction, he does not have any legal right to remain in possession, based on the illegal structure and it cannot be termed as a settled possession. The protection is given in law only to a person who is in settled possession and not to a person who forcibly enters to the land of another. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not proved his title nor proved his right to remain in possession, nor has produced any material to show that, he is in lawful possession during the pendency of the writ petition. It appears, this Court had granted interim order and admittedly the said writ petition is also disposed of. There is no interim order protecting the possession. In the light of acquisition proceedings, the possession deemed to have been taken by the BDA. However, in the interest of justice and equity, the Trial Court considering the alleged structure alleged to have put by the plaintiff, has again directed the BDA to issue notice giving one months time to the plaintiff to vacate. A person who is unauthorisedly squatting on the public property, has no right to remain in possession. Despite the Trial Court has shown sympathy, there is no law for extending the sympathy in favour of a person who squatting unauthorisedly on the public property. Such sympathy will harm the public interest, as there are several persons legally waiting for lawful allotment.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on judgment of this 'Court in the matter of D. Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : ILR 2005 KAR295 . The facts and circumstances of that case are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. A person who is squatting on the public property, has no right and further his application for regularisation of alleged unauthorised structure has been rejected by the Screening Committee and even if the alleged appeal is filed, no orders are passed in his favour. Plaintiff is not claiming regularisation of unauthorised structure on his land but on the public property. I do not find any merit in the appeal.
Accordingly, appeal fails and dismissed.