Karnataka High Court
G Channarayappa vs M/S Lakshmi Mallables Private Limited on 7 June, 2011
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
no AND: 1. M/s Lakshmi Mallables Private Limited; A comoarzy registered under the Companies Act 1956; Rptd by its Managing Director, M.R.Rajath, Aged about 35 years, S/o late M.Rama<:handra, No.144, Nyandahalli, , Mysore Road, Bangalore ~ 5600'3__9'.~~._p 2. The Commissioner, . ' Bangalore Development ADtho--flty,,. " ' Sankey Road, " * ' _ -. Bangalore ~ 560020. ' Respondents
A' ' ' ' (common) (By sri. H.T.Nata4r;a.fg;§.,.rr.;§xd.\?; 'f<;»;f"l'§1 "
MFA 469s::__o,r 2Ut1._V"i's,ffil'ed' uljder section 1:34, r/w order 43..r.ru_l'e'~._1(rj::::..of'-CPC, aga.irlst the order dated 23.05.2011 passed on I-./3;:~l.\io 2 in OgS.l\lo.25383/2011 on the file :or '-the I\r'ff/lsgdldl."*Qi'ty Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall 'unit, 'B.ang'aiore__,"'«restraining the defendants therein frorhr.i_4nterferEng._xmth the possession of the plaintiff over the. suft sc.hedo'le property and directing the plaintiff _._to maérgtam status'---gg__o__Aa,s on order dated in respect of suit
-. s:-:hedrul'e?--.'site'._until such orders that may be passed in '=_W.A;3522'/G9'«.orvp'ending disposal of the suit, whichever is eariner, * of 2011 is filed under section 10% r/w
-order "43"_ru'le 10") of CPC, against the order dated
--«..fg«._23.05.2C}3,§* passed on I.A.No.2 in Cl.S.i\lo.2S384/2011 on thee" file of the IV' Addi. City Civil and Sessions Judge; l¥ia3rr0gha1.§% unit; Barzgaioref restraining the defendants ._jt.here§r% from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff "'~,o:.rer the soil: sehedule prooerty aed directing the pfaérltiff is earhier.
3 therein to maintain status quo as on order dated in respect of suit schedule site until such orders that may be passed in W.A.1522/O9 or pending disposai of the suit, wh,i;ioi.eve_r is earlier.
MFA 4702 of 2011 is filed under sec:tio'.'i:i:" M order 43 ruie 1(r) of CPC, against: the~V--o.rder"».da.ted 23.05.2911 passed on I.A.i\io.2 inV-0;'S;-Ngo.;Z53,8S/'~23iiflonvng V the file of the Iv Addl. City Civil an.dAf:3e-ss'ion's 3v~s;i"d__ge,;- Mayohall unit, Bangalore, restrairmug 'the".,defend'ant.s'* therein from interfering with thefl possession of»'thue._plain;tift over the suit schedule properL3{'a.nd di're§:ting "the, plaintiff therein to maintain status quo ason order'da_ted in'grespect of suit schedule site until suchglo-rders"'that maiy-.beV passed in W.A.1S22/O9 or pending: di:f3pos.a"i~Qf,t'he suit, whichever is earlier. 7. s MFA 4703_oi.__201:i is"fAiie.d"«.i;'n_de'r"section 1o4, i"/W order 43 rule 13:)' of": CPC', agiai'n'st----the order dated 23.05.2011 _.pas's.ed-._..ofn "I..A_s_i\'lo,2'--"in'-«V0.5.i\io.25386/2011 on the file of the.:j_I\£ Addi,"'C,ity"'€'ivilg and Sessions Judge, Mayohail,i.u,nit;._ 'Ba:ng_ai--ore,_' re-straining the defendants therein from 'i'nte_rfer':.ng with the possession of the plaintiff over the.._su:it s.ched"e,.lge.ipropie--rty'and directing the plaintiff therein tornaintain 'stjawtuis..g"u'o""as on order dated in respect of suit s<:he'dlulie.Vsit'e_ u'nti'i.i$pch orders that may be passed in WA.1522/O9._»oi'-pending disposal of the suit, whichever .A _lV'lFr7A\'A«474:C.i4.__Of 2011 is filed under section 104, r/w °o.rd'er.V'«*i~3"'»..iroiei~s._1j.{r) of CPC; against the order dated 23;.os..,2o:;:i§r_p_ass'ea on :.A.No.2 in OISeN@u2S387!f20l1 on theifiie of.th;e IV Addi. City Civii and Sessions Judge,
--Mayoh'aii 'gunit, Bangaiore, restraining the defendants therein irorn interfering with the possession of the piaintiff "at/erwoitghe suit schedule property and directing the piaintiff' ' "t-h_eVrein'g.'to maintain status due as on order dated in respect ._j_of7:suit"schedtiie site entii such orders that may be passed in W.A.1S22/09 or pending disposal of the suit, whichever is earlier.
MFA 4705 of 2011 is flied under section 1'{34';---fr;{wv.. order 43 rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order'-«..tl--a__t_edV___"«_ 23.05.2011 passed on I.A.No.2 in C).S.No.2S3'é3_8"/20.1": org' the file of the Iv Addl. City Civil and S_e~ssi--<:{ns ";}ud.ge,.__ Mayohall unit, Bangalore, restrahiing. tije_..dAefe_nda-n.ts therein from interfering with the possesisioln 'of't.he- p'i'ra'ir-n_tii?€~ over the suit schedule property and,dirfeCting"thepiabintiff "
therein to maintain status quofas on o'rde'r dated' jinrespiect of suit schedule site untii such-.or'd..ers that 'may be passed in W.A.1522/09 or pending disposal of the"-suit," whichever is earlier. --.
MFA 4706 m:2o11"e-fimdvpndersecnon 104,i7w order 43 rule 1(r) of__CPC., ragairist "th;e" order dated 23.05.2011 passed on f_'.A.N'o.;2_iii..jO._.S.'N'n.25389/2011 on the file of the" I\%;.iAddl3; City? Civ._il"a"rtid~=' Sessions Judge. Mayohall ur_>it," ..__B1an'ga'lo.re_.' ~.._re's"tra_ini_ng the defendants therein from: i_Vnt:%;_rijerin"gwVi'thf_'theposgsession of the plaintiff over the_.s.u.it_ sC_hed:gle prorpeirty'-----»a.nd: directing the plaintiff therein to mail'r'it'a,in stiatuisttuo as on order dated in respect of suit seheduie s'ite-».,ur;»til's.u'i:h orders that may be passed in W.A.15'22/'O9 or peii.dir;g_"d«§sposal of the suit, whichever is earlier. 0' " ' I ..«'fijhese app"eels_ having been reserved, the Court 'idenvereathetpnomnngi 1"WyiEfi€0MM0NJUDGMENT "'<App_el'ie.n'ts are the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit/s "":?".:"--..i:n::titute.d'~~-"by the 19' respondent/piaintiff. The 2""
..re's_penrdent is the 5" defendant in the stzitfs. For E '2 'V. fly» Convenience, the parties woutd be referred te with reference to their rank: in the suit/s.
2. Brief facts of the case are:
(i) The plaintiff is an aiI:dtAEe'e'.ef'..« sf:}:'eAsV:v[_bVea-Emgv--.' Nes.169, 179, 171, 189, 190, 1:9e:L'~~sg'%J:9Je' Nagarabhavi 11 Stage lay0ut~,ve.g:.V"ferme'dn.§h~..S¥:1.Ne';'i'O§ of h' ' Nagarabhavi Vmage, VBa.hgaE«er'e'Noffh_2TaIg«k;--..be the 5"' defendant/Bangalore DeQeIehr'neh't (BDA). The possession ofg.st:'zegVVghsa;dIs;t§§s]fwefeV§Teve}:§re;e?d by the em to the plaintiff the sake deeds were execuf.'ed"{' has been registered in the na:h*.e"e_f ti~.é::"::' % _ _(ii) The 'tang Sy.N0g1O3, measuring 2 acres;
sit-{;je'te»e,: at NaAge:*e~b«havi Viiiage, which beionged to the 4 was acquired by the Government, eu_;%suah:"V4:€;y3;a Pretéminary Notification dated 15§O7.1982 and eféhai deciaratien dated 16.05.1985. An award was §:=es's.ed en 2e.e5.2ee2.
W X, 9 in disoute, wit? be maintained by the appeiiants, invievfg of the pehdency of WA Nos. 1490/2009 and 1522/zoos;jf;..i_'---_
6. Sri H.T.Netaraj, iearoed courise! eooejeréirrg the 1" resoohdeht, on the other ha:fio>Veo'r'st.e':3ded~that,_thej_ property of the appeiiarits was dVLi~!.,\,g:".,/:1'tquijre.:fi1"§_;y Government for impiementation'"eri{V:'the theuiéiiliuilx, possession was taken a.nid,oeii_xie'r'eo:'j4toi"B_f§>A,ithoohyvvéwhich, the BDA formed the to the pfaintiff and sites was delivered anci' the aiiotted sites was atscf""eXeeog;:.eo':;:::fi~iV"T the properties was registerettih piaintiff. Learned counset submitted thot..,% in rife h'-fihi-gr befated we 13028/2oo7 filed th.e'3"de_fered_antsV"I~to--~4, an exoarte order of statusquo .VweerVoasose--o_"o:r:'i~ ::S;.10.2007. However, by an order passed on the piaintiff} which was the 4"' respondent 'iron the w~rit'«petition, was permitted to out up Construction, s:ér§'.§ehi"ef.eerfy shows that the oiairitéffs is in possession and 'V""i.___"'en;io;ymeht of the suit oroperty, $%r1r:e; the writ petition a ti:
Ar ''»,.(x'' V" _ it) was erroneously allowed, WA 1522/2009 was filed and the order passed by the Learned Single Judge on 2O.i33;2_(jQi§}';~.vV allowing we 13028/2007' was stayed. Learned.
submitted that, despite the said orde_r,,.the defenda_'hts"ii"'to 4, who are residing in the locality wh'ereii;'nithe';.ui't is situated, made concerted"l_eif_orts to displossiesvstnthe plaintiff from the suit sehedule__:4_t5'rope.rty tj\,i.lge\soVrt§ing to illegal methods and by and muscle power and also their the political influence. the plaintiff, which is the high handed and iliegal acts of: --4fand their henchmen and hence the lstiitfis to protect the possession of the'p'ro,oert;.r, eras lawfully allotted and conveyed thvaea" fltezarned counsel submits that; in View of the pi'e§n'ti_i?fllAsa4t'i*sfyinVVgs""the mandatory conditions required for _passir'ig art 'order of temporary injunction, the Trial Court it""7e"tiVoo.nVcc_e>«:a'rnining the case of the parties, oassed the '" tr2?i';i:_i;i*«ghed order, which in the facts and circumstances of .:'_4'thve~--i:ase hetne a just and an eoeitaeie order; does riot sail , 55%' 'Q ,7 ea, J, /"
1"}
5. quash the award and the acquisition notifications. Cm 25.10.2002. an interim order was passed 13828/2007 to maintain status--quo. By a dated 09.04.2008, the piaintiff; 'which ;wa»sf"§:j~:h'ef 4%"
respondent in the writ petition, was perm:ittAe».ci' 't:o'put]-:;'p=:i;_*i Construction, subject to result of the wnt_ petVitio'n'.' A..;T.heWw:ritVA Detition was aiiowed on Tne aim ruesvponvdent in the writ petition ques€ié';ied'.V:L ""vs'§z.ii§i'~_'»order in WA 152:2./zoos. By anVinterimi._orde-tééoaitéégiVAé3j.".'i37.20O9, the operation of.4t;i}ie'< aiiowing WP 13028/zoo?EtugggiV:»g;§;§}:e'g,fl7TerpgifBig" questioned in WA 1490/20'i,)x9 the said writ: petition, The pendency'o.f4"che and passing of the said V Enteriijriortier i/vaSV_Vp1'eaded and also brought to the notice Trlioi {:o«:i_rt. Noticing the said undisputed position, the impugned order/s has heici as V _foiiox%%i'«s:
.. VoL_"I:1V'e--v'§exv of fiiing oi' Writ Appeal 1522/O9 by the V x §.§€tE'§fi,iff against the order allowing WP ESQESKG? ano stay of operation of the order passed in WP E3928/QT? in 'EEJF1 EEEZETJEI, it is neeessarv to maintain the stains X injunction against: the appefifants/defendants 1 to 4, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment V<_31Vr'.._:t'En1._Ve amtted sites by the EDA.
The statement made by Sri C;MyNa.ga'§;ng:Vs%i*§§3naVV'itngatt,',A 2 the status-qua of the property maintained by his clients Le. apvn:é'i.!nants; :3_t.a2'~.;i:s"v_:r«éé'c:§i$F€ieE:ji. No costs.