Bangalore District Court
Shaik Irshad vs The Commissioner, Bda on 2 August, 2025
KABC0A0017432020
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.25746/2020
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Shaik Irshad,
S/o. Shaik Ashwaq,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.16, Standage
Road, Frazer Town,
Bangalore - 560 005.
2. Shaik Imtiyaz,
S/o. Shaik Ashwaq,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.16, Standage
Road, Frazer Town,
Bangalore - 560 005.
(By Sri B.V. Rama Moorthy, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Cont'd..
2 O.S.No.25746/2020
DEFENDANT : The Bengaluru Development
Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner,
Kumara Park East,
Ballary Main Road,
Bangalore.
(By Sri K.V.S., Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 02-07-2020
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Injunction Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 27-09-2022
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 02-08-2025
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 05years, 01month, --days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is instituted by the plaintiffs against the
defendant for the relief of permanent injunction,
restraining the defendant, their agents, henchmen,
servants, officials or anybody claiming under them from
3 O.S.No.25746/2020
interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Restrain the
defendant, their henchmen, servants, agents, officials or
anybody claiming through them from dispossessing
plaintiffs from suit schedule property. Further, restrain
defendant, their henchmen, servants, agents, officials or
anybody claiming through them or any authority
through them from demolishing suit property and also
restrain them from alienating suit schedule property by
way of auction or allotting suit schedule property 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, the Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-operative
Society has formed a layout and suit schedule property
was allotted to Smt. Rasheeda Sulaiman under sale
deed dated 29.04.1982. Later on, Smt. Rasheeda
Sulaiman sold suit property in favour of plaintiffs under
registered sale deed dated 23.04.2005 for sale
consideration of Rs.5,59,000/-. After purchase of
4 O.S.No.25746/2020property, name of Mrs. Rasheeda Sulaiman entered in
concerned record of suit property maintained by
Nagawara Village panchayath and thereafter by CMC
Byatarayanapura. The plaintiffs after obtaining sale
deed have applied for change of khata in their names,
the BBMP authorities have issued Form-B property
register extract in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and
their vendors have been in continues possession and
enjoyment of suit property for more than 40 years.
BDA has not acquired suit property and said authority
has no right or interest in suit property. On
18.03.2020, at or about 10.30 a.m., the officials of
defendant come to suit property and attempted to
demolish it. The plaintiffs with great difficulty and with
help of neighbors resisted act of defendant authority.
On these pleadings, the plaintiffs have prayed to decree
the suit as prayed in plaint.
3. In response to the service of suit summons, the
defendant has tendered his appearance before the court
through his counsel and contested the case and filed
written statement.
5 O.S.No.25746/2020
4. The contents of written statement of
defendant in brief are as under :-
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, property bearing Sy. No.
44 of Nagawara Village measuring 9 acre 16 guntas was
acquired by defendant authority under preliminary
notification dated 02.02.1989 and award was passed in
respect of acquired property. Possession of acquired
property taken and handed over to Engineering Section
of BDA on 02.04.1990. The land in question comes
under BDA notified acquired land as such suit filed by
plaintiffs is not maintainable. The owners or legal heirs
if any are at liberty to file appropriate application in
LAC.No.251/1989-90 wherein award amount was
deposited. Property was acquired for purpose of
formation of Hennuru-Ballary Road, 3rd Stage, in
6 O.S.No.25746/2020exercise of power conferred under provisions of Land
Acquisition Act. Plaintiffs have no right, title or interest
in suit properly. On these grounds, it is requested by
defendant to dismiss suit of plaintiffs with costs.
5. On the basis of above pleadings of both parties,
this court has framed the following :-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they
are in lawful possession of the
schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that
defendant is illegally trying to interfere
with the lawful possession of the
plaintiffs and trying to demolish the
construction existing in the suit
property?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that
defendant is illegally trying to auction
the suit property?
4. Whether the defendant proves that suit
is not maintainable without issuing
notice under Section 64 of the BDA?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for
injunction as prayed for?
6. What order or decree?
7 O.S.No.25746/2020
6. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, The
plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1 and attesting
witnesses as P.W.2 and 3 and produced in all 37
documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P.37. The authorised officer
of defendant Authority examined himself as DW.1 and
produced in all 9 documents as Exs.D1 to Ex.D.9.
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 negative;
ISSUE No. 4 :- In the negative;
ISSUE No. 5 :- In the negative;
ISSUE No. 6 :- As per final order,
for the following –
REASONS
9. ISSUES No.1 to 4 :-As these issues are inter-
related to each other and involves common appreciation
of facts and evidence on record, findings on one issue
8 O.S.No.25746/2020
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 plaintiffs are claiming title and ownership
over suit schedule property based on registered sale
deed dated 23.04.2005 as per Ex.P.2. On perusal of
Ex.P.2, it is mentioned in document, one Mrs. Rasheeda
Sulaiman had sold suit property in favour of plaintiffs.
It is definite case of plaintiffs and same is deposed by
plaintiff No.1, who examined as P.W.1 before court that,
originally suit property bearing joint khata
No.25/5/2/39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 of
Nagawara Village was allotted to Mrs. Rasheeda
Sulaiman, who was member of Malleshwaram Tailoring
Co-operative Society under sale deed dated 29.04.1982
as per Ex.P.1. It is further deposed, Malleshwaram
Tailoring Co-operative Society has formed layout and
sold suit site to Mrs. Rasheeda Sulaiman. As per Ex.P.2
as already discussed, Mrs. Rasheeda Sulaiman sold suit
property in favour of plaintiffs.
11. It is worth to note here that, except Ex.P.1,
plaintiffs have not produced document to show, to
9 O.S.No.25746/2020
whom earlier said property belonged to and when
Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-operative Society has
acquired property and formed layout. Receipts, khata
confirmation letter, khata extract, tax paid receipts in
name of Mrs. Rasheeda Sulaiman have been produced
as per Exs.P.3 to P.6. In Ex.P.6 it is forthcoming by
deleting name of Mrs. Rasheeda Sulaiman, names of
plaintiffs entered to suit property. Exs.P.7 and P.8 tax
paid receipts, Ex.P.9 certificate and Ex.P.10 khata
extract, wherein names of plaintiffs shown in respect
suit property. Further, in Ex.P.11 to P.13 which are
certificate and khata extracts of suit property wherein
names of plaintiffs shown to suit property. Ex.P.14 to
P.16 are encumbrance certificates wherein it is
mentioned the Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-operative
Society sold suit property to Mrs. Rasheeda Sulaiman
and in turn Mrs. Rasheeda Sulaiman sold suit property
to plaintiffs.
12. The plaintiff No.1 who examined as P.W.1 has
deposed that, Mrs. Rasheeda Sulaiman sold suit
property in favour of plaintiffs as per Ex.P.2. It is worth
to note here that, defendant has specifically contended
10 O.S.No.25746/2020
and same is deposed by Sri Manjunatha, FDA in Land
Acquisition Section, Bangalore Development Authority,
who examined as D.W.1 that, land bearing Sy.No.44,
totally measuring 9 acre 16 guntas, situated at
Nagawara Village, Bengaluru North Taluk was acquired
by the defendant authority for formation of Hennuru-
Ballari Road, 3rd Stage by preliminary notification dated
02.06.1978 and final notification dated 02.02.1989.
Further, it is specifically stated by D.W.1 that,
possession of acquired land taken by defendant on
02.04.1990 under Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act.
In order to substantiate about acquisition of land by
defendant authority, the preliminary notification dated
02.06.1978 has been produced as per Ex.D.2. On
perusal of said document, at serial No.499 name of
Mathappa S/o. Ullurappa is shown in respect of
Sy.No.44 to an extent of 9 acre 16 guntas of Ngawara
Village.
13. Ex.D.3 is final notification dated 02.02.1989
wherein also name of Mathappa S/o. Ullurappa is
shown in respect of Sy.No.44 of Nagawara Village to an
extent of 9 acre 16 guntas. Copy of register of land
11 O.S.No.25746/2020
notification and acquisition of Sy.No.44 of Nagawara
Village has been produced as per Ex.P.4. Mahazaras
conducted at the time taking possession of property
have been produced Exs.D.5 and D.6. Copy of award
has been produced as per Ex.D.7 and copy of sketch
has been produced as per Ex.D.8. Copy of reference
made to civil court has been produced as per Ex.D.9.
On perusal of Ex.D.7 award it is clearly mentioned
award amount shown in the name of Mathappa S/o.
Ullurappa.
14. 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.44 of Nagawara Village and award was passed in
respect of acquired property and so also possession of
suit property had taken by defendant, very suit filed by
plaintiffs seeking relief of injunction is not maintainable.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for
plaintiffs has argued that, plaintiffs are claiming
possession over suit property based on sale deed and
there is no documents except Ex.D.5 and D.6 to show
12 O.S.No.25746/2020
possession of suit property taken by defendant
authority. As such, suit filed by plaintiffs is very much
maintainable.
16. The learned counsel for plaintiffs 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.
17. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon decision reported in 2014 (4) KCCR 3531
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
13 O.S.No.25746/2020
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.”
18. 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
not taken possession but has allowed the petitioner to
remain in possession so far.
19. The learned counsel for plaintiff further relied
upon the decision reported in (2013) 3 KCCR 1958 in
14 O.S.No.25746/2020
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.”
20. 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
particulars are not appearing, same cannot be relied on
to demonstrate that, physical possession of the property
has been taken over.”
21. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in Writ Petition
15 O.S.No.25746/2020
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.”
22. 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
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.”
23. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon decision reported in Regular First Appeal
16 O.S.No.25746/2020
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.”
24. 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.”
25. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in Writ Petition
No.13640/2014 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
17 O.S.No.25746/2020
structures in their sites with power and water supply
facilities.”
26. 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.”
27. 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.
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.
28. The learned counsel for plaintiff has further
relied upon the decision reported in ILR 1999 KAR
18 O.S.No.25746/2020
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.”
29. 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
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
19 O.S.No.25746/2020
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
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
20 O.S.No.25746/2020
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.”
30. 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
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.
21 O.S.No.25746/2020
31. 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, the Trial Court
extending the sympathy, directed the BDA to issue
notice and evict the plaintiff in accordance with law.
Such sympathy will harm the public interest, as there
are several persons legally waiting for lawful allotment.
32. It is required to be noted here that, for all
contentions of plaintiffs and decisions relied by counsel
for plaintiffs 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
22 O.S.No.25746/2020
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 plaintiffs
puts up authorized construction, they does not have
any legal right to remain in possession based on the
illegal structure and it cannot be termed as a settled
possession.
33. 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
23 O.S.No.25746/2020
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
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
24 O.S.No.25746/2020
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.
34. It is worth to note here that, already as per
Ex.D.2 entire land in Sy.No.44 to an extent of 9 acre 16
guntas of Nagawara Village was acquired by defendant
authority. It is evident from Exs.D.1 to D.9 that, as on
date of acquisition of said land one Mattappa S/o.
Ullurappa was owner of property and award for having
acquired property passed in his name. Further more, in
view of principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
25 O.S.No.25746/2020
once land is acquired by Bengaluru Development
Authority under relevant Act, Mrs. Rasheeda Sulaiman
has no right over suit property to execute sale deed as
per Ex.P.2 in favour of plaintiffs. Further more,
absolutely there is no documents except Ex.P.1 to show
The Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-operative Society legally
and validity acquired land and thereafter formed layout
and sold sites to its members. As per documents
produced by defendant already award passed in respect
of acquired land. As such, plaintiffs just based on
Exs.P.1 to P.16 cannot claim their possession over suit
property. An attempt was made by plaintiffs to contend
suit property comes within Gramatana but in order to
substantiate that, how Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-
operative society has acquired Gramathana area and
formed layout, nothing worth placed on record.
35. Now, coming to evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3
who examined on behalf of plaintiffs have deposed,
plaintiffs are 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
26 O.S.No.25746/2020
18.03.2020 at or about 10.30 a.m., the officials of
defendant authority attempted to interfere with peaceful
possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit property.
No doubt it is true, in some of decisions relied by
learned counsel for plaintiffs it is observed that, even in
case, plaintiffs are in possession of suit property
illegally, they are entitled for injunction till defendant
authority takes proper recourse under law, but 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, plaintiffs cannot
claim injunctive relief against defendant authority by
contending, they themselves and their vendor have been
continued in settled possession of suit property.
36. The defendant authority by producing Exs.D.1
to D.9 has clearly established that, suit property was
already acquired by defendant authority for formation of
Hennuru -Ballari Road, 3rd Stage and possession of suit
property taken by defendant authority.
27 O.S.No.25746/2020
37. As discussed supra defendant authority has
already acquired suit schedule property and awarded
compensation to owner and possession of suit property
was also taken under relevant Act. The defendant
authority being owner of suit property having acquired
it under relevant law, can allot suit property under
auction or allot it to any person. Plaintiffs cannot seek
injunctive relief restraining defendant authority from
allotting suit property to any third persons.
38. It is worth to note here that, defendant
authority has contended, suit filed by plaintiffs without
issuing a mandatory notice to defendant authority
under Section 64 of the BDA Act is not maintainable. It
is to be noted here, in respect of injunctive relief,
plaintiffs can maintain suit against defendant authority
without issuing prior notice as required under Section
64 of BDA Act. As per proviso to said section, no
injunction can be granted in favour of plaintiffs without
giving an opportunity to BDA. Hence, I answer Issues
No.1 to 4 in the negative.
39. ISSUE NO.5 :- It is worth to note here that,
absolutely there is no material on record to show as on
28 O.S.No.25746/2020
date of execution of Ex.P.2 vendor of plaintiffs had any
legal right over suit property. It is fact that, as on date
of execution of Ex.P.2 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 Mattappa S/o. Ullurappa
and possession certificate also issued. It is not case of
plaintiffs 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 inferred that, though suit
property was acquired by BDA in the year 1978 itself
and possession property taken by BDA, plaintiffs have
created sale deed as per Ex.P.1 and 2 and also created
revenue records pertaining to suit property and put up
illegal construction over suit property. Merely because
plaintiffs have put up illegal construction over suit
property, they are 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 plaintiffs who have continued as
trespasser in suit property cannot seek injunction
29 O.S.No.25746/2020
against defendant who is lawful owner of suit property
from exercising its right over suit property. As such,
plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs as prayed in
plaint. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in the negative.
40. ISSUES No.6 :- In view of the above said
findings on Issue No. 1 to 5, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby
dismissed with costs.
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 : Shaik Irshad 27-09-2022.
P.W.2 : K.C. Ganesh Reddy 07-08-2023.
P.W.3 : Nagaraju S.N. 07-08-2023.
30 O.S.No.25746/2020
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of sale deed
dated 29.04.1982.
Ex.P.2 : Computer generated certified copy of
sale deed.
Ex.P.3 : Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.4 : Khata certificate.
Exs.P.5 : Demand register extract.
and P.6
Ex.P.7 : Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.8 : Self assessment declaration Form.
Ex.P.9 : Certificate issued by BBMP.
Ex.P.10 : Demand register extract.
Ex.P.11 : Certificate issued by BBMP.
Ex.P.12 : Demand register extract.
Ex.P.13 : Computer generated tax paid receipts.
Exs.P.14: Encumbrance certificate.
to P.16Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.25133/2016Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.25340/2021.
Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.25390/2017.
Ex.P.20 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.15286/2004.
Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.6925/2006.
31 O.S.No.25746/2020
Ex.P.22 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.5963/2008.
Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.6792/2009.
Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.25922/2009.
Ex.P.25 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.783/2010.
Ex.P.26 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.8022/2010.
Ex.P.27 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.27068/2021.
Ex.P.28 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.25055/2013.
Ex.P.29 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.25056/2013.
Ex.P.30 : Certified copy of judgment
in O.S.No.26988/2013.
Exs.P.31: Photographs.
to P.37
3.LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Examined on:
D.W.1 : Manjunath 19-03-2024
4.LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D.1 : Authorization letter.
Exs.D.2 : Copy of Gazette notifications.
and D.3
Ex.D.4 : Copy of register of land notify.
Exs.D.5 : Office copy of mahazars dated 17.11.1989
and D.6 10.03.1989.
32 O.S.No.25746/2020
Ex.D.7 : Copy of the award.
Ex.D.8 : Copy of sketch.
Ex.D.9 : Copy of reference made to civil court.
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.