Bangalore District Court
J Jasmine vs The Commissioner, Bda on 2 August, 2025
KABC0A0026432020
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2025.
PRESENT:
Sri BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.26124/2020
PLAINTIFF : Smt. J. Jasmine,
D/o. Jaya Kumar,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No.36, Vishweshwaraiah
Nagar, 1st Cross, D.J.Halli,
Bangalore North Taluk, Arabic
College Post, Bangalore - 560 045.
(By Sri B.V. Rama Moorthy, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANT : The Bengaluru Development Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner,
Kumara Park East, Ballary Main Road,
Bangalore.
(By Sri P.R., Advocate)
Cont'd..
2 O.S.No.26124/2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 05-10-2020
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Injunction Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 26-05-2022
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 02-08-2025
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 04years, 07months, 27days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is instituted by the plaintiff against the
defendant for relief of permanent injunction, restraining
defendant, their agents, henchmen, servants, officials or
anybody claiming under them from interfering with
plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule property. Further restrain defendant, their
henchmen, servants, agents, officials or anybody
claiming through them from demolishing suit schedule
property. Further restrain defendant, their men,
3 O.S.No.26124/2020
servants, agents, officials or anybody claiming through
them from alienating suit schedule property by way of
auction or allotting suit schedule property in favour of
any persons or creating charges over suit schedule
property and to pass such other reliefs.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as
under:
That, land bearing Sy. No. 20/4, measuring 1 acre
34 guntas of Thanisandra Village, originally belonged to
Pappanna @ Chikka Pappanna. By virtue of family
partition, said land fallen to the share of Channe
Gowda. Later on Channe Gowda had formed layout and
sold sites to different persons. Channe Gowda had sold
suit schedule property in favour of Smt. Martha Vincent
for valid sale consideration amount and delivered
vacant possession of same to her. As there was bar for
registration of revenue sites, Channe Gowda had
executed general power of attorney coupled with
interest and executed affidavit in favour of Smt. Martha
Vincent. By virtue of the terms and conditions of GPA
and affidavit, Katha was changed in the name of Smt.
4 O.S.No.26124/2020Martha Vincent and her name entered in all relevant
records of the suit property. BPMP has issued a Kata
Certificate dated 27.06.2008 in favour of Smt. Martha
Vincent. Smt. Martha Vincent subsequently sold suit
property in favour of plaintiff under registered sale deed
dated 29.06.2020. The plaintiff and her vendor have
been in continuous possession and enjoyment of suit
property more than 40 years. Plaintiff and her vendor
are in settled possession of suit property. On
04.09.2020 at around 10.30 a.m., an officials of
defendants have made an attempt to demolish suit
property and thereby tried to interfere in the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit property.
On these pleadings, the plaintiffs have prayed to decree
suit as prayed in plaint.
3. In response to the service of suit summons,
defendant has tendered his appearance before the court
through his counsel and contested the case and filed
written statement.
4. The contents of written statement of
defendant in brief are as under :-
5 O.S.No.26124/2020
That, suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in law or
on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for non
compliance of Section 64 of BDA Act. Suit filed by the
plaintiff is false, frivolous, vexatious and not
maintainable either in law or on facts. It is specifically
contended by defendant that, land bearing Sy. No. 20/4
of Thanissandra Village, measuring 1 acre 34 guntas
was acquired by defendant under preliminary
notification dated 03.02.2003 and award was passed on
03.07.2004. Possession of acquired property taken by
defendant on 04.09.2004. The officials of defendant are
doing developmental work in acquired land. Hence,
question of interference by defendant in suit property
does not arise. Plaintiff nor her previous owner have no
claim or interest over suit property. Property was
acquired for the purpose of formation of Arkavathy
layout in exercise of power conferred under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Plaintiff has no
right, title or interest in the suit properly. On these
grounds, it is requested by defendant to dismiss suit of
plaintiff with costs.
6 O.S.No.26124/2020
5. On the basis of above pleadings of both parties,
this court has framed the following :-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
the absolute owner in possession of the
suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference by the defendant as
pleaded in the plaint?
3. Whether the defendant proves that the
suit property is already acquired by
them as contended in para No.13 of
their written statement?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
injunction as prayed for?
5. What order or decree?
6. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, The
plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1 and attesting
witnesses as P.W.1 and 3 and produced in all 29
documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P.29. The authorised officer
of defendant Authority examined himself as DW.1 and
produced in all 9 documents as Exs.D1 to Ex.D.8.
7 O.S.No.26124/2020
7.I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant and I
have perused the case records.
8. My answers to the above issues are as under-
ISSUE No. 1 :- In the negative;
ISSUE No.2 :- In the negative;
ISSUE No. 3 :- In the affirmative;
ISSUE No. 4 :- In the negative;
ISSUE No. 5 :- As per final order,
for the following –
REASONS
9. ISSUES No.1 TO 3 :- As these issues are inter-
related to each other and involves common appreciation
of facts and evidence on record, findings on one issue
are bearing on other issues, in order to avoid repetition
of facts and for convenience sake, all issues are taken
together for common discussion.
10. The plaintiff is claiming ownership and
possession over suit schedule property based on
registered sale deed dated 29.06.2020 as per Ex.P.3. On
perusal of Ex.P.3, it is mentioned in document, one
Smt. Martha Vincent being General Power of Attorney
8 O.S.No.26124/2020
holder of Chenne Gowda had sold suit property in
favour of plaintiff. It is definite case of plaintiff and
same is deposed by her, who examined as P.W.1 before
court that, originally land bearing Sy.No.20/4,
measuring to an extent of 1 acres 34 guntas of
Thanisandra Village belonged to Papanna @ Chikka
Papanna and in family partition said property fallen to
the share of Chenne Gowda. Later on Chenne Gowda
had formed a layout and sold suit site in favour of Smt.
Martha Vincent. As per Ex.P.3 as already discussed,
Smt. Martha Vincent sold suit property in favour of
plaintiff.
11. It is to be noted here, General Power of
Attorney dated 13.03.1990 executed by Channe Gowda
S/o. Papanna @ Chikka Papanna in favour of Smt.
Martha Vincent in respect of suit property produced as
per Ex.P.1. Affidavit dated 13.03.1990 executed by
Chenne Gowda in respect of suit property has been
produced as per Ex.P.2, wherein it is mentioned, sale
deed in respect of suit property executed to Smt. Martha
Vincent. Based on these documents, plaintiff is claiming
she become an absolute owner of suit property.
9 O.S.No.26124/2020
12. In order to show, Sy.No.20/4 of Thanisandra
Village, originally belonged to Papanna @ Chikka
Papanna and thereafter it was entered in name of
Chenne Gowda, records of rights of suit property from
the year 1969-70 to 2000-01 have been produced as per
Exs.P.4 to P.6. khata in respect of suit property in the
name of Smt. Martha Vincent has been produced as per
Ex.P.11. Certificate in respect of suit property in the
name of Smt. Martha Vincent has been produced as per
Ex.P.12. Encumbrance certificate has been produced as
per Ex.P.14, wherein it is mentioned, Smt. Martha
Vincent being General Power of Attorney of Chenne
Gowda sold suit property in favour of plaintiff.
13. The plaintiff who examined as P.W.1 has
deposed that, Chenne Gowda sold suit property in
favour of Smt. Martha Vincent and she purchased it
from Smt. Martha Vincent as per Ex.P.3. It is worth to
note here that, defendant has specifically contended
and same is deposed by Superintendent in Land
Acquisition Section in Bangalore Development
Authority, who examined as D.W.1 that, entire land
bearing Sy.No.20/4, total measuring 1 acre 34 guntas,
10 O.S.No.26124/2020
situated at Thanisandra Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk was acquired by the defendant
authority for formation of Arkavathi Layout and award
passed on 03.07.2004. Further, it is specifically
stated by D.W.1 that, possession of acquired land taken
by defendant on 04.09.2004 under Section 16 of Land
Acquisition Act. In order to substantiate about
acquisition of land by defendant authority, the
preliminary notification dated 03.02.2003 has been
produced as per Ex.D.2. On perusal of said document,
at serial No.114 name of Smt. Saraswathamma W/o.
Channe Gowda is shown in respect of Sy.No. 20/4 to an
extent of 1 acre 34 guntas of Thanisandra Village.
14.Ex.D.4 is final notification dated 23.02.2004
wherein also name of Smt. Saraswathamma W/o.
Channe Gowda is shown in respect of Sy.No.20/4 of
Thanisandra Village to an extent of 1 acre 34 guntas.
Award copy dated 03.07.2004 produced as per Ex.D.4
wherein name of Smt. Saraswathamma W/o. Channe
Gowda shown in respect of Sy.No.20/4 to an extent of 1
acre 34 guntas, situated at Thanisandra Village. On
perusal of said document, award of Rs.24,46,410/-
11 O.S.No.26124/2020
passed in respect of Sy.No.20/4 to an extent of 1 acre
34 guntas of Thanisandra Village in favour of Smt.
Saraswathamma.
15. The Copy of notification under Section 12(2) of
Land Acquisition Act, dated 28.08.2004 have been
produced as per Exs.D.5 to D.7. In said documents, it is
mentioned that, Sy.No.20/4 to an extent 1 acre 34
guntas of Thanisandra Village acquired for formation of
Arkavathi Layout. Ex.D.8 is possession certificate
issued under Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act in
respect of Sy.No.20/4 to an extent of 1 acre 34 guntas.
It is clearly mentioned in Ex.D.8 that, possession of
suit property taken by BDA on 04.08.2004.
16. It is vehemently argued on behalf of learned
counsel for defendant authority that, once proceedings
under Land Acquisition Act initiated in respect of
Sy.No.20/4 of Thanisandra Village and award was
passed in respect of acquired property and so also
possession of suit property had taken by defendant, suit
filed by plaintiff seeking relief of injunction is not
maintainable.
12 O.S.No.26124/2020
17. On the other hand, learned counsel for
plaintiff has argued that, plaintiff is claiming title over
suit property based on sale deed and there is no
documents except Ex.D.8 which is cyclostyled
document to show possession of suit property taken by
defendant authority. As such, suit filed by plaintiff is
very much maintainable.
18. The learned counsel for plaintiff in support of
his contention has relied upon decision reported in
LAWS (KAR)- 2013-9-68, in case of The Bengaluru
Developed Authority Vs. M.S. Narayana Murthy,
wherein it is held that, it is a civil dispute, it is clear the
civil court can proceed with the matter and if the relief
sought for is relating to entertain by it. Even if the
answer would be that it falls in the acquired area, then
if the possession or occupation is established, even if it
is unauthorized, that necessarily a civil in nature for
which the suit for eviction has to be filed by filing a
separate suit.
19. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon decision reported in 2014 (4) KCCR 3531
13 O.S.No.26124/2020
in case of Ananda P. and another Vs. State of
Karnataka and Others, wherein it is held that,
“However, there is material filed along with the
statement of objections, such as the mahazar indicating
that there was a proceedings in taking over possession
of the petitioners” land as well as the notification issued
u/s 16(2) of the LA Act. However, the actual taking over
of physical possession of the land, even if it could be
contended that such possession was taken, would have
to be demonstrated by producing acceptable evidence.
The issuance of notification u/s 16(2) would arise only if
it is demonstrated that actual physical possession was
taken pursuant to the acceptable evidence produced
before the Court.”
20. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2011 KAR 574
in case of Mrs. Poornima Girish Vs. Revenue
Department, Government of Karnataka and Others,
wherein it is held that, ” petitioner has continued to
remain in possession and occupation of the building
constructed on the acquired land. The authority has
14 O.S.No.26124/2020
not taken possession but has allowed the petitioner to
remain in possession so far.
21. The learned counsel for plaintiff further relied
upon the decision reported in (2013) 3 KCCR 1958 in
case of K.L. Ramesh Vs. Bangalore Development
Authority and Others, wherein it is held that,
“Mahazaar, all that can be said is that it is not a reliable
document for having taken possession of the petitioner’s
land. In the absence of satisfactory explanation over the
alleged possession having been taken on 27.03.1999 or
25.08.2000, though the final notification was issued on
16.09.1997, the proceeding smacks of lethargy,
negligence and dereliction of duty.”
22. The learned counsel for plaintiff further relied
upon decision reported in Regular Fist Appeal
No.1631/2007, in case of Bangalore Development
Authority Vs. Smt. Gopamma and others, wherein it
is held that, “mahazar prepared in a cyclostyled form by
filling up the blanks without presence of owners of land
or anybody representing them, said to have been drawn
in the presence of individuals whose names and
15 O.S.No.26124/2020
particulars are not appearing, same cannot be relied on
to demonstrate that, physical possession of the property
has been taken over.”
23. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in Writ Petition
No.45498/2014 in case of Muniswamy and his Lr’s
Vs. The State of Karnataka by its Principal
Secretary Urban and Development Department and
The Bengaluru Development Authority, wherein it is
held that, “the petitioner has produced several
photographs to indicate that pacca buildings have been
constructed and they even look posh over the property.
The possession having been taken by the BDA in
respect of the land in question, is highly doubtful.”
24. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in 2007 (13) SCC 565
in case of Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others
Vs. Nagesh Siddapa Navalgund Others, wherein it is
held that, “Record of right is not a document of title.
Entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the
Indian Evidence Act although are admissible as a
16 O.S.No.26124/2020
relevant piece of evidence and although the same may
also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond
any doubt or dispute that such a presumption is
rebuttable.”
25. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon decision reported in Regular First Appeal
No.947/2005 in case of The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority Vs. K.P.
Shamanna and Others, wherein it is held that,
“statement as well as in the evidence, the BDA admitted
that the plaintiffs had put up structures, it is obvious
that the Trial Court was justified in granting a decree of
injunction.”
26. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2004 KAR
1074 in case of Naganna Vs. Shivanna, wherein it is
held that, “the ROR extracts produced by the plaintiff
would show that he is in effective possession of the
property. The ROR extract carries presumptive value in
law. There is no convincing evidence placed by the
defendant to rebut the legal presumption.”
17 O.S.No.26124/2020
27. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in Writ Petition
No.13640/2024 in case of Jaypaul Vs. The
Bangalore Development Authority and others,
wherein it is held that, “petitioners have produced
certain photographs reflecting the existence of
structures in their sites with power and water supply
facilities.”
28. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in 2011 (5)
Kar.L.J.524 in case of R. Adhikesavulu Naidu and
Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, wherein
it is held that, “relief before court – when once the
scheme lapsed there cannot be any further proceeding
for acquisition either in respect of land sought to be
acquired which had not vested in the State Government
before lapsing of the scheme even the acquisition
proceedings lapse.”
29. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1972 SCC
2299 in case of M. Kallappa Setty Vs. M.V.
18 O.S.No.26124/2020
Lakshminarayan Rao, wherein it is held that, plaintiff
in possession of suit property he can on strength of his
possession, resist interference from defendants who has
no better title than himself and get injunction
restraining defendant from disturbing his possession.
30. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in ILR 1999 KAR
1451 in case of Sathyam @ Ramaiah and others Vs.
Karnataka Milk Federation Co-operative Limited,
wherein it is held that, where a Trespasser is in Settled
Possession of the land, is entitled to resist or defendant
his possession even as against the rightful owner who
tires to dispossess him.”
31. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
defendants has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of (2013) 3 SCC 66 in case of
Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
and another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and another, wherein
it is held that, “it is clear that the Land Acquisition Act
is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public
purpose. By necessary implication, the power of the civil
19 O.S.No.26124/2020
court to take cognizance of the case under Section 9
CPC stands excluded and a civil court has no
jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity or
legality of the notification under Sec.4. No doubt, in the
case on hand, the plaintiffs approached the civil court
with a prayer only for permanent injunction restraining
defendants 1 and 2 i.e., BDA, their agents, servants and
anyone claiming through them from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule
property. It is true that there is no challenge to the
acquisition proceeding. However, in view of the
ascertain of BDA, in their written statements, about the
initiation of acquisition proceedings ending with the
passing of award, handing over possession and
subsequent action, etc. said suit is not maintainable.
This was rightly concluded by the trial court. For proper
compensation, the aggrieved parties are free to avail the
statutory provisions and approach the court concerned.
All these aspects have been clearly noted by the trial
court and ultimately it rightly dismissed the suit as not
maintainable. On the other hand, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court though adverted to the
20 O.S.No.26124/2020
principles laid down by this court with reference to
acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act and
Section 9 CPC committed an error in remanding the
matter to the trial court on the ground that the plaintiffs
were not given opportunity to adduce evidence to show
that their vendor was in possession which entitles them
for grant of permanent injunction from evicting them
from the schedule property without due process of law
by the defendants. In the light of the specific assertion
coupled with material in the written statement about
the acquisition of land long ago and subsequent events,
suit of any nature including bare injunction is not
maintainable, hence, we are of the view that the High
Court is not right in remitting the matter to the trial
court for fresh disposal.”
32. The learned counsel for defendant has further
relied upon decision reported in (1997) 9 SCC 544 in
case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Sadhu Ram,
wherein it is held that, it is an undisputed fact that
consequent upon the passing of the award under
Section 11 and possession taken of the land, by
operation of Section 16 of the Act, the right, title and
21 O.S.No.26124/2020
interest of the erstwhile owner stood extinguished and
the Government became absolute owner of the property
free from all encumbrances. Government having become
absolute owner of the property free from all
encumbrance, unless title is conferred on any person in
accordance with a procedure known to law, no one can
claim any title much less equitable title by remaining in
possession.
33. The learned counsel for defendant has further
relied upon decision reported in ILR 2007 KAR 5121
in case of M.B. Bettaswamy Vs. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority and Another,
wherein it was held that, when the land is acquired and
the possession is taken, the land vests in the state.
Even if the plaintiff puts up authorized 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 – A person who is
unauthorizedly squatting on the public property, has no
right to remain in possession. However, Trial Court
extending the sympathy, directed the BDA to issue
notice and evict the plaintiff in accordance with law.
22 O.S.No.26124/2020
Such sympathy will harm the public interest, as there
are several persons legally waiting for lawful allotment.
34. It is required to be noted here that, for all
contentions of plaintiff and decisions relied by counsel
for plaintiff there is clear answer by The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Brijesh Reddy case, wherein it was
clearly held that, it is true that there is no challenge to
the acquisition proceeding. However, in view of the
ascertain of BDA, in their written statements, about the
initiation of acquisition proceedings ending with the
passing of award, handing over possession and
subsequent action, etc. said suit is not maintainable. So
far as possession of plaintiff over suit property as
contended, there is no proper mahazar and no material
to show possession of suit property taken by defendant
authority, it is clearly observed in Sadhu Ram and M.B.
Bettaswamy cases as referred above wherein it was held
that, when the land is acquired and the possession is
taken, the land vests in the state. Even if the plaintiff
puts up authorized construction, he does not have any
legal right to remain in possession based on the illegal
23 O.S.No.26124/2020
structure and it cannot be termed as a settled
possession.
35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent decision
in Civil Appeal No. 2749/2023 in case of Land and
Building Department Through Secretary and
Another V/s Attro Devi and others was pleased to
observe that, when the State Government acquires land
and drawn up a memorandum of taking possession,
that amounts to taking the physical possession of the
land. Government is not supposed to put some other
person or the police force in possession to retain it and
start cultivating it till the land is used by it for the
purpose for which it has been acquired. The
Government is not supposed to start residing or to
physically occupy it once possession has been taken by
drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining
possession thereof. Thereafter, if any further retaining of
land or any re -entry is made on the land or someone
starts cultivation on the open land or starts residing in
the outhouse, etc., is deemed to be the trespasser on
land which in possession of the State. Thus, it is
apparent that vesting is with possession and the statute
24 O.S.No.26124/2020
has provided under section 16 and 17 of the Act of 1894
that once possession is taken, absolute vesting
occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting is with
possession thereafter. The vesting specified under
Section 16, takes place after various steps, such as,
notification under Section 4, declaration under
Section 6, notice under Section 9, award under Section
11 and then possession. The statutory provision of
vesting of property absolutely free from all
encumbrances has to be accorded full effect. Not only
the possession vests in the State but all other
encumbrances are also removed forthwith. The title of
the landholder ceases and the state becomes the
absolute owner and in possession of the property.
Thereafter there is no control of the landowner over the
property. He cannot have any animus to take the
property and to control it. Even if he has retained the
possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after
possession has been taken by the State, he is a
trespasser.
36. It is worth to note here that, already as per
Ex.D.2 entire land in Sy.No.20/4 to an extent of 1 acre
25 O.S.No.26124/2020
34 guntas of Thanisandra Village was handed over and
acquired by defendant authority. It is evident from
Exs.D.1 to D.8 that, as on date of acquisition of said
land Channe Gowda was no more. Name of his wife
Smt. Saraswathamma entered in Exs.D.2 to D.8. There
is no material on record to show as on date of execution
of Ex.P.3 sale deed Channe Gowda who said to have
been executed General Power of Attorney in favour of
Martha Vincent was alive. It is settled law that, once
executant of power of attorney dies, the power of
attorney holder has no right over to execute any
document on behalf of executant. Further more, in view
of principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court once
land is acquired by Bengaluru Development Authority
under relevant Act, Smt. Martha Vincent claiming to be
power of attorney holder of Channe Gowda had no right
to execute sale deed as per Ex.P.3 in favour of plaintiff.
As per documents produced by defendant already award
passed in respect of acquired land. As such, plaintiff
just based on Exs.P.3, P.11 to P.13 cannot claim her
possession over suit property.
26 O.S.No.26124/2020
37. Now, coming to evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3
who examined on behalf of plaintiff have deposed,
plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit property
and suit property was not acquired by BDA. It is further
deposed by P.W.2 and P.W.3 that, on 04.09.2020 at
10.30 a.m., the officials of defendant authority
attempted to interfere with peaceful possession and
enjoyment of plaintiff over suit property. D.W.1 in his
cross-examination admitted that, on 04.09.2020 they
tried to demolish building over suit property. No doubt
it is true, in some of decisions relied by learned counsel
for plaintiff it is observed that, even in case, plaintiff is
in possession of suit property illegally, she is entitled for
injunction till defendant authority takes proper recourse
under law. As already discussed, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Brijesh Reddy case has clearly held, even suit
for injunction is not maintainable once acquisition
proceedings were concluded. Taking into note of
principles laid down in above decision, plaintiff cannot
claim injunctive relief against defendant authority by
contending, she herself and her vendor have been
continued in settled possession of suit property.
27 O.S.No.26124/2020
38. The defendant authority by producing Exs.D.1
to D.8 has clearly established that, suit property was
already acquired by defendant authority for formation of
Arkavathi Layout and possession of suit property taken
by defendant authority. Hence, I answer Issues No.1
and 2 in the negative, Issue No.3 in the affirmative.
39. ISSUE NO.4 :- It is worth to note here that,
absolutely there is no material on record to show as on
date of execution of Ex.P.3 vendor of plaintiff had any
legal right over suit property. Further there is no
material on record to show as on date of execution of
Ex.P.3, Channe Gowda who said to have been executed
Ex.P.1 and P.2 power of attorney and affidavit was alive.
It is fact that, as on date of execution of Ex.P.3 already
suit property was acquired by defendant authority
under notifications as per Ex.D.2 and D.3. Moreover,
award in respect of suit property passed in name of
Saraswathamma w/o. Channegowda and possession
certificate also issued. It is not case of plaintiff that,
there was De-notification of acquired land by the
government of by court order and land again vest with
original owner. Under these circumstance, it can safely
28 O.S.No.26124/2020
inferred that, though suit property was acquired by BDA
in the year 2003 itself and possession property taken by
BDA, plaintiff has created sale deed as per Ex.P.3 and
also created revenue records pertaining to suit property
and put up illegal construction over suit property.
Merely because plaintiff has put up illegal construction
over suit property she is not entitled of injunctive relief
as prayed in suit. The defendant authority which
acquired suit property and passed award become
absolute owner of the same. Now plaintiff who has
continued as trespasser in suit property cannot seek
injunction against defendant who is lawful owner of suit
property from exercising its right over suit property. As
such, plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed in
plaint. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 in the negative.
40. ISSUES No.5 :- In view of the above said
findings on Issue No. 1 to 4, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed with costs.
29 O.S.No.26124/2020
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed &
computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced
in the open Court on this the 2nd day of August, 2025).
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Mrs. J. Jasmine 26-05-2022. P.W.2 : Mukarram Rahim Khan 05-09-2024. P.W.3 : Saleem Hussain 05-09-2024.
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P.1 : Original General Power of Attorney
dated 13.03.1990.
Ex.P.2 : Original affidavit dated 13.03.1990.
Ex.P.3 : Original absolute sale deed
dated 29.06.2020.
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of RTC for the period
from 1969-70 to 1973 -74.
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of RTC for the period
from 1989-90 to 1991-92, 1995-96
to 1999-2000.
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of RTC for the period
from 2000-01 to 2001-02.
Ex.P.7 : Original copy of Betterment charges
for the year 2005-06.
Ex.P.8 : Original copy of notice dated 26.06.2006.
30 O.S.No.26124/2020
Ex.P.9 : Original copy of tax bills for
the year 2005-06.
Ex.P.10 : Original copy of tax bills formation
the year 2006-07.
Ex.P.11 : Original copy of Assessment register.
Ex.P.12 : Original copy of khata certificate.
Ex.P.13 : Original copy of Assessment register
for the year 2007-08.
Ex.P.14 : Original copy of encumbrance certificate
for the period of 29.6.2020 to 29.6.2020.
Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of judgment and decree
in O.S.No.25917/2011.
Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of judgment and decree
in O.S.No.26595/2014.
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of judgment and decree
in O.S.No.26118/2018.
Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of judgment and decree
in O.S.No.25137/2015.
Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of judgment and decree
in O.S.No.25138/2015.
Ex.P.20 : Certificate issued by BBMP.
Ex.P.21 : Assessment register extract.
Exs.P.22: Tax paid receipts.
to P.24
Exs.P.25 : Photographs.
to P.28
Ex.P.29 : CD.
3.LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Examined on:
D.W.1 : Sakrappa 16-06-2023
31 O.S.No.26124/2020
4.LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D.1 : Authorization letter.
Ex.D.2 : Preliminary notification.
Ex.D.3 : Final notification.
Ex.D.4 : Award copy.
Exs.D.5 : Copies of Sec.12-2 notice.
to D.7
Ex.D.8 : Mahazar.
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.