Bangalore District Court
Syed Anwar vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 6 June, 2025
KABC0A0007352015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.
(CCH-74)
P r e s e n t:
Smt. Anitha N.P., B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 06th day of June, 2025.
O.S. No.25003/2015
Plaintiffs:- Sri. Syed Anwar
S/o Syed Ahmed,
Aged about 67 years,
R/at No.15/29, 2nd Floor,
K.M.Lane, S.P.Road Cross,
Bengaluru 560 002.
Since december by his legal heirs
(a). Noorjan,
W/o late Syed Anwar,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.15/29, 2nd Floor,
K.M.Lane, S.P.Road Cross,
Bengaluru 560 002.
(b). Syed Ahmed,
S/o late Syed Anwar,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.15/29, 2nd Floor,
2
O.S. No.25003/2015
K.M.Lane, S.P.Road Cross,
Bengaluru 560 002.
[By Sri.D.Thippeswamy-Adv.]
Vs.
Defendant:- The Bangalore Development Authority
Represented by its Commissioner
Kumara Park West,
Bengaluru 560 020.
[By Nirmala B Hansi-Adv.]
Date of institution of the : 02.01.2015
suit
Nature of the suit (Suit for
pro-note,suit for declaration : Injunction suit
and injunction, suit for
injunction, etc)
Date of commencement of : 24.04.2019
recording of evidence
Date on which the : 06.06.2025
Judgment was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Days
10 05 04
(Anitha.N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)
3
O.S. No.25003/2015
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit as against the defendant BDA seeking the relief of permanent injunction and for such other further reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaint averments are as under:-
The suit schedule property was originally belongs to one Adiyappa and his sons by name Nagaraj, A Ramadas and A.Srinivas by virtue of sale deed and they executed registered GPA in favour of one A.Iqbal. They also executed an affidavit confirming the sale transaction and also the execution of GPA. Thereafter, the said Iqbal excising his power had executed registered sale deed dated 01.02.1992 in favour of Syeed. The said Syeed had also executed GPA dated 11.03.1998 and an affidavit in respect of receiving full sale consideration in respect of suit property to one Yacoob Sheriff. Thereafter the GPA holder of said Syeed executed sale agreement dated 22- 04-2004 and executed registered sale deed dated 26-06- 4 O.S. No.25003/2015 2004 in favor of plaintiff. The plaintiff has obtained electricity and water connection to the suit property and plaintiff has paid tax before the Byatarayanapura CMC.
3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The plaintiff's vendor had even submitted an application before the concerned authority for regularization of unauthorized construction in suit property and the same is pending consideration. It is on 27.06.1979 the defendant issued preliminary notification followed by final notification dated 09.01.1985. However, the possession was not taken by the BDA. The owners remained in possession. Accordingly, the acquisition proceedings is not completed. On 22.10.1998 the defendant appointed Three members committee consisting of Deputy Commissioner, Engineering Member, Town planning member to inspect HBR 1 st stage along with Special Land Acquisition Officer so as to ascertain 5 O.S. No.25003/2015 possibility of developing the land and also to know about built area. The said committee submitted report stating that some of the lands are fully developed and there is no possibility for formation of layout and they recommend for denotify the same after collecting the penalty from the land owner. In the said report it is stated that the suit schedule property is situated in built up area. The mahazar drawn by defendant also shows that possession of suit property was not taken. It is since more than 6 decades the plaintiff and his vendors are in continuous possession of suit schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff's right is adverse to the title and interest of defendant. The plaintiff is bonafide purchaser, he is in lawful possession and settled possession. Even at the time of construction of building the defendant not raised any objection. The defendant never objected the possession of vendors of plaintiff or plaintiff at any time. The settled possession of plaintiff cannot be disturbed 6 O.S. No.25003/2015 without due process of law. As per sec.27 of BDA Act the scheme was not implicated within 5 years and accordingly the scheme is also lapsed. The defendant without following the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka partly demolished building. On 05.12.2014 at 10:30AM the officials of defendant attempted to interfere also demolish the suit property without issuing notice. The defendant made an attempt to allot suit property to others to defraud the right of the plaintiff. They are trying to create charge over the suit property. on the above grounds the suit was filed and prays to decree the suit.
4. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff was reported dead and his LRs were brought on record.
5. The defendant after receiving the suit summons appeared before the court through its counsel and filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit property cannot be identified. The defendant can identify the 7 O.S. No.25003/2015 survey numbers acquired for the benefit of general public. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1) Whether plaintiff proves their lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2) Whether plaintiff proves illegal
interference caused by the
defendant?
3) Whether plaintiff proves that defendant authority is making attempt to allot the suit schedule property to others?
4) Whether plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought in the suit?
5) What order or decree?
7. That the LRs of plaintiff so as to prove their case got examined their SPA holder as PW1 and he do not turned up for cross examination. Thereafter, they 8 O.S. No.25003/2015 examined another SPA holder as PW2 and plaintiffs have got marked 21 documents as per Ex.P1 to 21. On the contrary the defendant except cross examining PW2 has not lead evidence and not produced any document.
8. Heard arguments, perused the pleadings, evidence, documents and available materials on record.
9. My answer 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 :- As per final Order for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 & 3:- These issues are inter- linked with each other, Hence I proceed to discuss 9 O.S. No.25003/2015 together, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
11. It is the case of plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property having residential house bearing khatha No.985 (old khatha No.804, house list No.19 & 20) situated at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 65 feet by virtue of registered sale deed dated 26.06.2004 executed by Syeed through her GPA holder. The khatha is also transferred in his name. According to plaintiff earlier it was belongs to one Adiyappa and said Adiyappa and his sons have executed registered GPA in favor of one Iqbal and said Iqbal sold the suit property to SYeed. there is a residential house in the suit schedule property and the said construction of building took place for more than one year and the defendant has not raised any objection for construction of building. The plaintiff as 10 O.S. No.25003/2015 well as his vendors are in continuous possession of suit property for more than 6 decades and hence their possession is adverse to the interest of owner and also settled. The defendant has issued preliminary notification on 27.06.1979 and final notification was issued on 09.01.1985. However, the defendant has not taken possession. Hence, the land was not vested with BDA. That apart the defendant appointed 3 members committee consisting of Deputy Commissioner, Engineer, Town planning member to inspect HBR-1 stage along with Special Land Acquisition Officer to ascertain whether there is a any possibility to develop the land there. The said committee after its inspection reported that suit property is situated in built up area, and they recommended for denotify the same. When that being the case the defendant authority without following the directions of Hon'ble High Court held in various decisions partly demolished the building. On 11 O.S. No.25003/2015 05.12.2014 the defendant tried to interfere and demolish the schedule property without issuing notice to the plaintiff. They also made an attempt to allot the suit property to others with malafide intention.
12. These facts have been denied by the defendants in the written statement and the defendants contended that the suit property cannot be identified as the khatha number site number is only mentioned. Accordingly, the defendants have denied the very identity of the suit schedule property.
13. The Lrs of plaintiff so as to prove their case got examined their special power attorney holder by name Nurul Ameen as PW-1 and this PW.1 during the course of evidence filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the plaint averments. He has produced and got marked in all 20 documents as per Ex.P1 to 20. Ex.P1 is certified copy of GPA dated 03.12.1991, Ex.P2 is certified copy of sale deed dated 01.02.1992, Ex.P3 12 O.S. No.25003/2015 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 26.06.2004, Ex.P4 and 4(a to f) 7 photos, Ex.P5 is the tax paid receipt, Ex.P6 & 8 are self tax assessment form, Ex.P7 & 9 are also tax paid receipts, Ex.P10 & 11 are encumbrance certificate, Ex.P12 is the acknowledgment issued by Banaswadi Police Station, Ex.P13 is acknowledgment in form No.76A, Ex.P14 and 14 (a) are 2 paper publications dated 05.04.2015, Ex.P15 is the CD, Ex.P16 is the B khatha extract, Ex.P17 is the khatha certificate, Ex.P18 is the EC, Ex.P19 and 19(a) are tax paid receipts, Ex.P20 is SPA.
Subsequently, this PW.1 not appeared and tendered himself for cross-examination. The plaintiffs thereafter, have examined their another SPA holder Mohammed Sulthan Salahuddin as PW-2 without getting the evidence of PW1 discarded. The evidence of PW1 without being tested in cross examination has no evidentiary value in the eye of law.
13
O.S. No.25003/2015
14. It is necessary to note that PW-2 also during the course of evidence filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the plaint averments and he got marked one document i.e., SPA as per Ex.P21.
15. On perusal of Ex.P1 the same is the certified copy of registered GPA executed by Adiyappa and others in favour of Iqbal. The property shown there in is land bearing Survey Number.155/6 measuring 16 guntas of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 01.02.1992 and the same shows that it was executed by Adiyappa and others in favour of Mrs.Syeeda. The said sale deed was executed in favor of Syeeda through GPA holder A.Iqbal. In the said sale deed the property sold was house list No.17,18,19,20 Khatha No.804 of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore bounded East by vendor's property, west by 20 feet road, north by house list No.21, south by 40 14 O.S. No.25003/2015 feet road measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 125 feet, Ex.P3 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 26.06.2004 executed by Mrs. Syeeda through her PA holder Sri. K. Yacoob Shariff in favour of Mr. Syed Anwar. The property shown in the schedule of the said sale deed is the land with residential house bearing khatha No.985 (old khatha No.804, house list No.19 and 20) measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 65 feet at Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore.
16. According to plaintiff he purchased the suit schedule property from Syeeda as per Ex.P3 sale deed. It is necessary to note that in the Ex.P2 GPA holder of the persons by name Adiyappa and his sons have conferred certain rights in respect of property bearing survey No.155/6 of Nagawara Village measuring 16 guntas. The very same GPA holder representing the said Adiyappa as well as his sons executed sale deed in favour of 15 O.S. No.25003/2015 Smt.Syeeda mentioning the property as house list No.17, 18, 19, 20, khatha No.804. From which property or Survey number the said house list No.17, 18, 19, 20 were carved out is not corroborated from any of the documents.
17. Even on perusal of the Ex.P16 which is the extract of house and vacant site register the same also does not disclose out of which property or survey number the said house list property No.19 and 20 were carved out. The property in Ex.P3 sale deed is House list No.19 and 20 and the mother title deed Ex.P2 doesn't show how the vendor Adiyappa got the said property. the subsequent sale deed of plaintiff's vendor also does not state when the property was assigned with house list number and whether the suit schedule proeperty and the property sold by Adiyappa to the vendor of plaintiff are one and the same property.
18. None of the sale deed does not disclose when the said House list No.19 and 20 are carved out of Survey 16 O.S. No.25003/2015 number property stated in Ex.P1 GPA. The property in GPA is survey number property whereas the GPA holder sold property in favour of Smt.Syeeda which are not survey number property on the contrary they are house list No.17, 18, 19, 20. How the vendors vendor of plaintiff i.e., Adiyappa and his sons acquired the said property is not corroborated by any document.
19. Accordingly when there is a dispute about the very identity of the suit schedule property the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the identity of the said property with its specific boundaries.
20. It is also necessary to note that the plaintiff though pleaded that Adiyappa and his sons got the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed no such document is produced before the court. Hence how the vendors vendor of the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property has not been explained nor any document is produced to prove flow of the title.
17
O.S. No.25003/2015
21. This suit is for the relief of bare injunction, the title of the property is immaterial. The plaintiff need not prove title of the property. However the plaintiff has categorically pleaded that his vendor Syeeda got the suit schedule property from the earlier owner Adiyappa and his sons. However as discussed above when adiyappa got the survey number 155/6 is not proved and how the GPA holder of Adiyappa sold the House list No.17 to 20 which are not mentioned in GPA is not proved. The identity of the property shown in the GPA executed by Adiyappa and his sons and the sale deed executed by GPA holder of Adiyappa in favour of vendor of plaintiff is entirely different.
22. That apart the plaintiff also specifically contended that himself and his predecessors in title are in possession of suit schedule property for more than 6 decades and their possession is adverse to the title and interest of the defendant. Though the plaintiff specifically 18 O.S. No.25003/2015 asserts that his right is adverse to the title of the defendant still he claims that he purchased the suit schedule property and acquired the possession. Therefore the title of the suit schedule property is required to be considered incidentally. The very documents relied on by the plaintiff are insufficient to establish the very flow of title to the plaintiff nor they are helpful to the plaintiff to establish acquisition of title by his vendors through adverse possession. The plaintiff has not established the very identity of the suit schedule property.
23. Even for the sake of arguments contention of the plaintiff that his vendor's Syeeda acquired title is considered as true, no document to establish title of Adiyappa who is vendor of Syeeda is produced before the court. The document relied on by the plaintiff are totally insufficient to establish these facts. Except the copy of sale deed and khatha certificate plaintiff has not produced any other document to show the exact identity of the suit 19 O.S. No.25003/2015 schedule property and so also his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. Without establishing the basic requirements of the suit for bare injunction the contentions of the plaintiff that he is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit has no weight. The photographs, CD relied on by the plaintiff is not supported by certificate as contemplated under Indian Evidence Act. Moreover the photographs cannot be considered as piece of evidence to establish the possession over the immovable property.
24. The plaintiff has approached this court with specific case that he is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and they got constructed house. However, he has not produced any piece of evidence in support of these contentions. Therefore the assertion of the plaintiff that he is in lawful possession and his vendors got constructed the house 20 O.S. No.25003/2015 having acquired it under the Regd. Sale Deed appears to be unreasonable to accept.
25. No doubt the defendant not entered into witness box and not produced any document. However the same is not a ground to decree the suit of the plaintiff. On the other hand plaintiff has to establish his case on his own strength and he has to stand on his own legs, he cannot take benefit of the weakness of the defendant to get decree in his suit.
26. Though the plaintiff has contended that Katha in respect of the suit schedule property before the authority has been changed in his name and he is paying tax to the concerned authorities. As discussed above he has not placed any single piece of document to prove identity of suit property and also flow of title. The oral evidence of PW.1 has not been corroborated with the documentary evidence. Therefore the argument of the plaintiff that he is in lawful and settled possession cannot be accepted. 21
O.S. No.25003/2015
27. The plaintiff in support of his case has relied on decisions reported in:
ILR 2011 KAR 3657 between Sri Adikesavulu Naidu and others Vs The State of Karnataka by its Secretary, UDD and others Wherein in the Head note A it is held as follows:
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT 1976 AND RULES 1975 Sec.27 failure on the part of the authority to implement the scheme within five years as mandated under- further implementation of the lapsed scheme - legality of the acquisition proceedings- held - a scheme proposed by Bangalore Development Authority if is not substantially implemented within a period of five years as is mandated under Sec.27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act and has lapsed, there is no question of court permitting further implementation of the scheme, if it is to the detriment of any person and such a person has sought for relief before the court....
28. However in the case on hand the plaintiff has not pleaded whether the land acquired by BDA covers the suit schedule property and whether the suit schedule property is comprised in the land acquired by 22 O.S. No.25003/2015 the BDA. The plaint is silent in respect of the survey numbers which are acquired by BDA. Hence with due respect to the dictum laid down in the above case the same is not helpful for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's counsel also relied on decision reported in
1. 2013 SCC Online Kar 10299 between K.L Ramesh Vs BDA Bangalore and others
2. ILR 2005 KAR 295 between D. Narayanappa Vs The State of Karnataka
29. I have carefully gone through the dictum laid down in the above cases. In the case on hand the plaintiff has asserted that he is in lawful possession of suit schedule property having acquired the same by virtue of registered sale deed executed by Syeeda. Whereas as discussed above the plaintiff failed to prove the very identity of the suit schedule property and so also his lawful possession within the possession over the said property. Hence with due respect to the 23 O.S. No.25003/2015 principles laid down in the above decisions the same are not helpful for plaintiff.
30. The plaintiff utterly failed to prove the identity of the suit property and failed to prove his lawful possession/ Settled possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant is making attempt to alienate the suit property to others. No evidence in respect of the attempt of defendants to alienate the suit property is produced before the court. Hence taking into consideration of these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue Nos.1 and 3, accordingly I answered them in the negative.
31. Issue No.2:- It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit, but the defendant without issuing prior notice causing threat of 24 O.S. No.25003/2015 demolition of the structure erected on the suit schedule property. The act of the defendant is illegal and contrary to the right and interest of the plaintiff.
32. These facts have been denied by the defendant in the written statement and the defendant contended that suit schedule property is not identifiable. As already discussed in Issue Nos.1 and 3, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his lawful possession/settled possession as on the date of suit with cogent and convincing evidence, though he claims to be acquired the title as on the date of the suit, but the flow of title and identity of the suit schedule property has not been established. Therefore, his contention that he has acquired the possession over the suit schedule property under the sale deed is unreasonable to accept.
33. The plaintiff stated that the defendant has issued preliminary notification and thereafter final 25 O.S. No.25003/2015 notification for acquiring the property. However, the possession was not at all acquired by the defendant. Even the 3 members committee appointed by BDA to inspect HBR-1 stage also reported that suit schedule property is situated in built up area. The defendant tried to interfere and demolish the suit schedule property. However in this regard no piece of evidence is placed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not pleaded the identity of the property which was acquired by the BDA and what was the relation of suit schedule property in respect of land acquired by the BDA. Under the circumstances the arguments of the plaintiff that the defendant is trying to interfere with his possession and trying to demolish building over the suit schedule property cannot be accepted. Since the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his lawful possession the alleged act of the defendant cannot be considered as 26 O.S. No.25003/2015 illegal. Hence, the Plaintiff failed to prove Issue No.2 and I answered it in the negative.
34. Issue No.4:- The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the identity of the suit schedule property and so also his lawful possession over the suit property as on the date of suit and also failed to prove the alleged interference by the defendants and hence the argument of the plaintiff that he is entitled for the relief sought in the suit, has no weight. Accordingly I answered Issue No.4 in the negative.
35. Issue No.5:- In view of the reasoning given above, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff as against defendant is hereby dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
--27
O.S. No.25003/2015 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her and after corrections pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06th day of June, 2025) (Anitha.N.P.) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH-74) ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs side:-
P.W.1 : Nurul Ameen S.K. P.W.2 : Mohammed Sulthan Salahuddin
2. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:-
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of GPA dated
03.12.1991
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
01.02.1992,
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
26.06.2004,
Ex.P.4& : 7 photos
4(a to f)
Ex.P.5 : Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.6 : Self tax assessment form
28
O.S. No.25003/2015
Ex.P.7 : Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.8 : Self tax assessment form
Ex.P.9 : Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.10-11 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.12 : Acknowledgment issued by Banaswadi Police Station Ex.P.13 : Acknowledgment in form No.76A Ex.P.14& : 2 paper publications dated 05.04.2015 14(a) Ex.P.15 : CD Ex.P.16 : B khatha extract Ex.P.17 : Khatha certificate Ex.P.18 : EC Ex.P.19- : Tax paid receipts 19(a) Ex.P.20 : SPA Ex.P.21 : SPA executed in favour of PW.2.
3. List of witness examined for the defendants side:-
Nil
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants side:-
Nil (Anitha N.P.) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH-74)