Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The Commissioner, Corporation Of City ... vs Union Of India on 27 October, 2025
SLP(C) No.23768/2022
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.23768/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
29-03-2022 in RFA No. 1944/2006 passed by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru]
THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 143145/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.,IA No.
285093/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES,IA No. 143143/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 27-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv.
M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR
Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.
Signature Not Verified Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.10.28
18:17:08 IST
Reason: 1
SLP(C) No.23768/2022
Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv.
Mr Koney Rama Mohan Rao, Adv.
Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 29.03.2022 in Regular First appeal No. 1944 of 2006 by which the appeal filed by the Union of India came to be allowed in part. The final conclusions drawn by the High Court in its impugned judgment read thus:-
“24. In the light of the findings recorded by this Court on point Nos. 1 to 3, this Court is of the view that the finding of the learned Judge that the plaintiff is in lawful possession is perverse, palpably erroneous. To claim lawful possession, plaintiff has to produce documents indicating as to how they came in possession of the suit schedule property. To assert possessory right or title, no documents are produced by the plaintiff/Corporation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that plaintiff has highhandedly trespassed into a private land and has put up construction. It is very strange to note that plaintiff/Corporation having constructed Multistoried building as claimed by them in the plaint as well as during trial has not produced the building plans, the documents relating to permission for having put up construction, audit reports relating to construction and completion certificate.
25. If these significant details are taken into consideration, then what emerges from the pleadings and documentary evidence is that plaintiff/Corporation has highhandedly utilized the land which was not owned by it and by doing so, has come up with illegal construction. It is 2 SLP(C) No.23768/2022 also unfortunate that defence personnel have also not objected at the inception when this illegal construction was put up. However, the Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. material on record would clearly indicate that it is the defendants who are the owners of the suit schedule property.
Since illegal constructions are existing in the Sy. Nos.84 and 90, the defendants cannot take law in their hands. Even against the illegal construction and against wrongful trespasser, the lawful owner is expected to initiate legal action and take possession under due process of law. Therefore, the finding on issue No.1 though appears to be palpably erroneous, however, the judgment and decree of the Court below in granting limited protection appears to be in accordance with law. If there are any illegal structures constructed by the plaintiff/Corporation, it is open for the defendants to take appropriate steps and seek possession in the manner known to law.
26. With these observations, the appeal is allowed in part by holding that plaintiff is not in lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Having regard to demolition and the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire action of the plaintiff/Corporation has to be condemned by this Court. It is unfortunate that a statutory body like Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has indulged in spending exchequers money and has raised illegal construction in a private land. Therefore, it is open for the Chief Commissioner of BBMP to initiate appropriate enquiry and take appropriate action against those who are responsible in putting up illegal construction in the suit schedule property.
27. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The judgment and decree dated 12.04.2006 passed in O.S.No. 2478/1991 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore is modified. The plaintiff has encroached and has constructed illegal constructions in the suit lands. It is therefore open for the defendants to 3 SLP(C) No.23768/2022 take appropriate steps to seek possession from the plaintiff;
iii) Office to draw the decree accordingly.”
2. The Commissioner, Corporation of City of Bangalore, being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, referred to above, is here before us with the present petition.
3. We heard Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned ASG appearing for the Union of India.
4. As recorded in our Order dated 24.2.2025, the petitioner had put forward a proposal that the Corporation of City of Bangalore was ready and willing to offer an amount of Rs.34 crore for the purpose of full and final settlement. The proposal put forward by the petitioner herein was taken into consideration by the Ministry of Defence.
5. Ms. Bhati has placed on record the letter dated 17th July, 2025 received by her from the Ministry of Defence in the form of a factual note and the current status of the proposal put forward by the petitioner for the purpose of settlement. The letter reads thus:-
“1. Case Background:4 SLP(C) No.23768/2022
The matter pertains to defence land in Survey Nos.84, 90, and 99 of Binnamangala Village, Bangalore North Taluk, which was encroached upon by BBMP by way of construction of seven multistoried residential blocks, religious structures, an Anganwadi, and access roads during 1985-87, without due authority.
The said parcels include land acquired by the Ministry of Defence during 1972-74 for the Madras Engineering Group & Centre (MEG&C). Additionally, 30 Acres in Sy. No.99, described as a government tank (lake), was handed over by the Revenue authorities on 10.04.1963.
In response to the encroachment, the Local Military Authority (LMA) had intervened and halted further construction, demolishing temporary structures. Subsequently, BBMP filed OS No.2478/1991 before the XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking a permanent injunction and compensation.
The suit was decreed in BBMP's favour on 12.04.2006, which was challenged by the Union of India in RFA No.1944/2006. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, vide order dated 29.03.2022, partly allowed the appeal and concluded that BBMP had carried out unauthorised constructions and held that it was open for the Union of India to initiate steps to seek possession.
BBMP filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the order dated 15.12.2022 advised amicable settlement, noting that the dispute involved two public institutions-the Union of India and the Corporation of Bangalore.
5 SLP(C) No.23768/20222. Follow up Action and Survey:
A joint meeting between the Chief Commissioner, BBMP, the DEO, and the Dy. GOC was held on 17.02.2023, and a physical survey was conducted on 22.02.2023.
The survey initially reported an encroachment of 2 Acres 3 Gunta however, following further inspections and correction for double counted portions (on 06.06.2024 and 24.06.2024), the actual encroached area was determined as 1 Acre 18 Gunta.
3. Proposal by BBMP and MoD Response:
BBMP offered cash compensation of ₹34,03,44,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Crore Three Lakh Forty Four Thousand only) for 01 Acre 18 Gunta (comprising 01 Acre 03 Gunta in Sy. No.84 and 15 Gunta in Sy. No. 90), based on the prevailing guidance value of Rs.58,000 per sqm.
BBMP also proposed to hand over an additional 18 Gunta of land in Sy No. 99, classified as lake land, post demolition of existing constructions, subject to the condition that no construction activity shall be undertaken on it in the future due to applicable environmental regulations.
The LMA has conveyed willingness to accept this 18 Gunta portion post demolition and in an encumbrance free condition.
4. Cabinet Note Status:
The Ministry of Defence has conveyed its in principle approval via letter dated 9th July, 2025 for the acceptance of the proposal, subject to 6 SLP(C) No.23768/2022 the approval of the Competent Authority.
Accordingly, the Draft Cabinet Note has been prepared and forwarded through proper channel to seek Cabinet approval for the acceptance of BBMP's offer of Rs.34.03 crores for the transfer of 01 Acre 18 Gunta of defence land in Sy. Nos. 84 and 90.
The Cabinet decision is presently awaited.”
6. It appears that the Ministry of Defence has conveyed its in-
principle approval vide its letter dated 09.07.2025, referred to above, for the acceptance of cash compensation of Rs.34,03,44,000/ (Rupees Thirty Four Crore Three Lakh Forty Four Thousand only) for 01 Acre 18 Gunta (comprising 01 Acre 03 Gunta in Sy. No.84 and 15 Gunta in Sy. No. 90), based on the prevailing guidance value of Rs.58,000 per sqm. as offered by the BBMP subject to the approval of the competent authority.
7. In view of the in-principle settlement we need not adjudicate this litigation any further.
8. Let necessary steps be taken further in accordance with the approval granted by the Ministry of Defence.
9. With the aforesaid this petition stands disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
7 SLP(C) No.23768/2022(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 8