Bangalore District Court
Dhanaraja Babu G vs Bruthath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ... on 5 January, 2026
1
O.S. No.6768/2014
KABC010189972014
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 XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCH-41)
::Present::
Smt. Veena N., B.A.L. L.L.B.,
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 05th day of January, 2026.
O.S. No.6768/2014
PLAINTIFF :: Sri. Dhanaraja Babu G., S/o. Sri.
P.Ganesh, Aged about 38 years,
R/at: No.25/1, No.14, Shankara Park
Road, Shankarapuram, Bengaluru - 560
004.
(By Sri. Raja Gopala Naidu, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANT :: Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
N.R.Square, Bengaluru - 560 002.
Represented by its Commissioner.
(By Smt. Prathima V., Advocate)
2
O.S. No.6768/2014
Date of Institution of the :: 04-09-2014
Suit
Nature of the Suit :: INJUNCTION
Date of commencement of :: 07-07-2015
recording of evidence
Date on which the :: 05-01-2026
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration :: Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 04 01
(VEENA N.)
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
Suit is one for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
2. Case of the plaintiff in brief is as hereunder:-
The plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which comprises 10 sites each measuring 30X40 ft. totally measuring 300X40 ft. The plaintiff purchased the 3 O.S. No.6768/2014 schedule property from its previous owners and khata is transferred to his name in the B.B.M.P. records and he is regularly paying tax to the B.B.M.P. It is stated that the suit schedule property comprises vacant sites and house in site No.1 is constructed by the plaintiff and care taker Sri. Kishore Kumar S/o. Narasimulu is residing in the said shed along with his family and the plaintiff has constructed compound covering the entire suit schedule property. It is stated that the defendant issued notice on 24.05.2014 to the plaintiff to demolish the compound wall constructed on the border of site No.1 alleging that it is obstructing pathway and rain water drainage, for which the plaintiff replied suitably vide reply dated 12.06.2014 bringing the factual situation to the notice of B.B.M.P. and that his site No.1 does not obstruct pathway or rain water drainage. It is stated that the B.D.A. has formed layout in Sy. No.49 of Mallathahalli Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and the said layout is situated adjacent to the suit 4 O.S. No.6768/2014 schedule property. The plaintiff has not encroached any pathway, drainage, halla and rajakaluve at the edge of site No.10 on the other hand, the plaintiff has left 2½ X 40 ft. space on the south eastern side of the property as per the request of the B.B.M.P. as a good gesture.
3. When this being factual position, on 25.10.2014 the officials of B.B.M.P. came along with the JCB machine and demolished the compound wall constructed on the south eastern side of the property saying that it obstructs road connecting to Srirama layout without issuing any prior notice to the plaintiff and the act of the defendant is illegal and high handed. Hence, in this regard the plaintiff filed private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and it is still pending before the Court of IX ACMM, Bengaluru. Again on 02.09.2014 the officials of B.B.M.P. came along with workers and attempted to trespass the schedule property and they also threatened to demolish the 5 O.S. No.6768/2014 compound wall constructed around the suit schedule property and hence, left with no choice the present suit is filed.
4. In pursuance to the summons issued, the defendant caused appearance and filed written statement wherein which it is contended that the suit is not maintainable and it is a vexatious suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not complied with the requirement of issuance of statutory notice as mandated under Section 482 of KMC Act, 1976. It is stated that the suit schedule property is situated in a layout which is not approved by the competent authority under law and hence, the relief in respect of sites which are not duly approved by the competent authority is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that upon verification of the revenue records it is found that a site which is marked as site No.10 is unilaterally carved out by encroaching a storm water drain. The plaintiff has encroached public property and hence, he 6 O.S. No.6768/2014 cannot say that B.B.M.P. has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is stated that the demolition of the compound wall has been carried out for removal of encroachment of the storm water drain and the action of B.B.M.P. is in accordance with law. The Taluk surveyor Bengaluru North Taluk has prepared a sketch clearly demarcating the existence of storm water drain which has been encroached by the plaintiff. The B.B.M.P. has carried out the removal of encroachment and the plaintiff cannot maintain any injunctive relief against the defendant. Further the village map of Mallathahalli Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk also indicates existence of storm water drain. Hence, the plaintiff cannot place any reliance either on the sale deeds or any other document which is contrary to factual position as borne out from village map and survey sketch. The B.B.M.P. is under statutory obligation to protect the public property and also remove encroachments and accordingly, 7 O.S. No.6768/2014 demolished the compound wall constructed in the encroached area and hence, the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and thus, contending these facts sought for dismissal of suit.
5. Heard arguments of both counsels and perused records.
6. The aforesaid pleadings have occasioned following ;
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has not constructed the compound wall by encroaching pathway and rain water drainage ?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the officials of the defendant have illegally demolished South-Eastern side compound wall and the alleged interference of the defendant ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for ?
4. What Order or Decree ?
8
O.S. No.6768/2014
7. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and relied upon 48 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.48 and closed the evidence. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, 16 documents are confronted and marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16. On the contrary, the defendant has not chosen to adduce any evidence.
8. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
ISSUE No.1 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.2 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.3 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.4 :: As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
9. ISSUES NO.1 TO 3 :: All these issues are taken up collectively for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and also for convenience of the Court. 9
O.S. No.6768/2014 The present suit is one for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property involved in the present suit are sites No.1 to 10 totally measuring 300X40 ft. situated at Mallathahalli village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk each measuring 30X40 ft. and all the suit schedule sites are bounded on road towards northern side of all the 10 sites.
10. Learned counsel for plaintiff in his arguments submits that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule sites from its previous owners and all the documents stands in the name of plaintiff and such being the position, the B.B.M.P. has illegally issued notice alleging that the compound wall at site No.1 obstructs pathway and drain and though it was suitably replied by the plaintiff by issuing reply notice and clarified that the site 10 O.S. No.6768/2014 No.1 does not obstruct any public pathway or rain water drainage and though the plaintiff has not encroached any halla, rajakaluve and drain in Sy. No.49, the defendant trespassed into the schedule property and illegally demolished the compound wall constructed in site No.10 and it is submitted that though the notice was issued for demolition of compound wall in site No.1 they have illegally demolished the compound wall existing in site No.10 and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff clearly establishes that the storm water drain, rajakaluve or halla do not flow in Sy. No.49 and it is only a small halla which is shown in the sketch and the said sketch also do not show that the halla passes through the site No.10 and defendant has not placed any conclusive documents to prove encroachment by the plaintiff and the high handed act of the defendant amounts to trespass and illegal interference with the plaintiff's possession and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed.
11
O.S. No.6768/2014
11. On the contrary learned counsel for defendant in her arguments relying upon the sketch and the photographs placed on record which are marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 submits that the revenue records clearly establishes that site No.10 is carved out by encroaching a storm water drain and the plaintiff has encroached the public property and this is evident from the photographs coupled with the admission of plaintiff in his cross-examination that there runs the storm water drain and also the plaintiff has admitted that he is not in possession of the suit property and the B.B.M.P. has demolished the compound wall and formed road and thereby, the possession of the plaintiff is not established and since the plaintiff has encroached the public property and had illegally constructed compound wall, the B.B.M.P. being the statutory authority has demolished the compound wall in accordance with law and hence, no relief can be granted as against the defendant.
12
O.S. No.6768/2014
12. Having heard the arguments putforth by the both the counsels, now the issue that requires to be adjudicated is as to whether the plaintiff has constructed the compound wall in site No.10 by encroaching the storm water drain or rajkaluve as alleged by the defendant or as to whether the plaintiff has established that the defendant has illegally demolished the compound wall constructed in site No.10.
13. So the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish that there is no encroachment on his part and there is no storm water drain that passes through his property. To substantiate the same, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and he has in his evidence deposed that he is the owner of house No.1 and site No.1 to 10 which are adjacent to each other and entire extent measured 300X40 ft. formed in Sy. No.49 of Mallathahalli village, Yashwanthapura Hobli. It is stated that on the northern side of all the 10 sites a road passes from east to west and said road was provided by 13 O.S. No.6768/2014 the previous land owners for the ingress and egress to reach the property. It is stated that Sy. No.49 of Mallathahalli village totally measured 4 acres 11 guntas and comprised 21 guntas of kharab land and it originally belonged to one Mr. Venkataramanappa and he bequeathed the land as well as the other properties under WILL dated 14.11.1961. It is stated that under the said WILL Venkataramanappa bequeathed 2 acres 7 guntas of land in favour of his son Ramakrishnaiah. The said Ramakrishnaiah formed layout and out of the said layout he sold sites No.1 to 10 with an access of road on the northern side and all the buyers were placed in possession by receiving consideration amount. During the life time of Ramakrishnaiah, he did not convey the schedule property as per the agreement. After his demise his legal heirs filed a suit for injunction as against the agreement holders and it was dismissed as they were unable to prove possession. Subsequent thereto on 08.04.2003, the B.D.A. notified the entire 14 O.S. No.6768/2014 lands measuring 4 acres 7 guntas and kharab land and by issuing final notification dated 09.09.2003 acquired the entire land. Later, the B.D.A. formed layout as per the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, the previous owners S.Nagaraj and others filed a representation before B.D.A. to delete their sites as well as road portion and the B.D.A. vide resolution dated 22.11.2010 has deleted 30 guntas of land and released the sites by forming layout in the rest of the land.
14. Later, the sons of Ramakrishnaiah executed an irrevocable G.P.A. and based on that, the sale deeds were executed wherein the plaintiff purchased the schedule properties under various registered Sale Deeds and got the revenue entries transferred to his name. It is stated that the daughter of previous land owner by name Smt. R.Veena by fabricating partition deed and revenue documents commenced construction on the northern side road by blocking entry to the house No.1 of the plaintiff and site No.2, for which he filed a 15 O.S. No.6768/2014 suit and the same is pending. The officials of B.B.M.P. by colluding with her got the building plan sanctioned for the road and in this regard plaintiff filed complaint before Lokayuktha. In view of the said ill will towards the plaintiff, the Asst. Executive Engineer of the defendant B.B.M.P. with a malafide intention to damage his property, without issuing any notice or verifying the revenue records has illegally demolished the compound wall on 02.09.2014 on the ground that the plaintiff has constructed building on rajkaluve and hence, the suit.
15. In support of his evidence P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38 which are the registered Sale Deeds dated 17.09.2013, B-khata extract, tax paid receipt, khata certificate and Uttara patra in respect of sites No.1 to 10 and all these documents shows the plaintiff purchased the said sites from its erstwhile owners for consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- on the same day. All these title deeds shows towards northern side of sites No.1 to 10 road is situated. The material 16 O.S. No.6768/2014 documents relied upon P.W.1 is Ex.P.39 which is the letter issued by the Tahsildar of Bengaluru North Taluk to Hon'ble Upalokayuktha dated 17.06.2015 with regard to hissa phodi of Sy. No.49 of Mallathahalli village and he has clearly stated that Sy. No.49 was subjected to durast and it was phoded as Sy. No.49/1, 2 and 3 and based on the hissa phodi records, the property was surveyed and measured through surveyor and it was found that Sy. No.49 totally measures 4 acre 11 guntas including 21 guntas of kharab land and out of the remaining extent of 3 acres 30 guntas 3 acres is acquired by B.D.A. for the purpose for formation Sir M.Vishweswaraiah layout by issuing final notification dated 09.09.2003 and as per the final notification the acquired land measuring 3 acres is bounded on East by - Sy. No. 36/1, West by - 47, 55, North by - Sy. No.50 and 51 and South by - remaining extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.49. It is stated that when the boundary mentioned in the final notification and the boundary of Sy. No.49/3 in the durast records 17 O.S. No.6768/2014 are verified, it was found that there was some differences regarding the boundary and there are some discrepancies in the records, regarding the passing of rajakaluve as per the survey records and the sketch under which the compound wall of the plaintiff was demolished. So this letter of the Tahsildar marked as Ex.P.39 makes it clear that there is difference with regard to the boundary with respect to the property acquired by B.D.A. and subsequent to the durast proceedings and there is also difference in the survey records as to the passing of storm water drain through the property of the plaintiff i.e, the suit schedule property.
16. Ex.P.40 is the report submitted by the Land Surveyor and Ex.P.41 is the sketch accompanying the said report which shows that based on the direction issued by Hon'ble Upalokayuktha, the land surveyor has visited the spot and has verified the revenue records and durast records relating to Sy. No.49 and 49/1, 2 and 3 and it is reported as hereunder :
18
O.S. No.6768/2014
2. ಸ.ನಂ.49 ರಲ್ಲಿ 2 ನೇ ರೀಕ್ಲಾರಿಫಿಕೇಶನ್ ನಂತೆ ಇರುವ ಉದ್ದ 171-00 ಮೀಟರ್ X ಅಗಲ 5-10 ಮೀಟರ್ ನ ಹಳ್ಳ ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಇರುವ ಖರಾಬನ್ನು ಹಿಸ್ಸಾ ಪೋಡು ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ಹಿಸ್ಸೆ ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಖಲಿರುವ ಖರಾಬ್ ಚಿಹ್ನೆಯು ನಕ್ಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ವ್ಯ ತ್ಯಾಸವಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
ದೂರುದಾರರು ಆರೋಪಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ದೂರುದಾರರ ಕಾಂಪೋಡನ್ನು ತೆರವುಗೊಳಿಸಿರುವುದು ಸಹ ನಕ್ಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ವ್ಯ ತ್ಯಾಸವಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
3. ಸ.ನಂ.49 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ಯಾರ 2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ ಹಳ್ಳ ದ ದೂರುದಾರರ ಜಮೀನಿನಲ್ಲಿದೆ, ಸ.ನಂ.49 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಉಳಿದ ಜಮೀನಲ್ಲೂ ಹಾಗೂ ದೂರುದಾರರ ಜಮೀನಿನ (ನಿವೇಶನ)ದ ದಕ್ಷಿಣ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸ.ನಂ.48 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹ ಹಾದುಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದು (ಸರ್ವೆದಾಖಲೆಗಳಂತೆ) ಸದರಿ ಹಳ್ಳ ದ ಖರಾಬನ್ನು ತೆರವುಗೊಳಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ .
17. This report makes it clear that after durasth Sy. No.49 was phoded as Sy. No.49/1, 2 and 3 and after acquisition of land by BDA in the year 2004-05, difference has crept up regarding extent and boundary.
Ex.P.41 is sketch which shows the area in site No.10 wherein the compound wall measuring 40X16½ ft. is demolished by B.B.M.P. on the ground that rajakaluve passes through the said site and he has also clearly 19 O.S. No.6768/2014 mentioned that the boundary mentioned in the final notification issued by the B.D.A. and the survey records do not tally with each other and he has clearly stated in the sketch as hereunder:
ಸ.ನಂ.49 ರಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರುದಾರರಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿರುವ
ಪ್ರದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಳ್ಳ ದ ಖರಾಬನ್ನು (ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿರುವ ಪ್ಯಾರ
ನಂ.3 ಮತ್ತು 4 ರಲ್ಲಿನ ಮಾನ್ಯ ತೆಯಂತೆ) ಗೊಳಿಸಿದ್ದು
ಸ.ನಂ.49 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಉಳಿದ ಹಳ್ಳ ದ ಖರಾಬನ್ನು ಹಾಗೂ
ಸ.ನಂ.49 ರ ದಕ್ಷಿಣ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸ.ನಂ.48 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಹಳ್ಳ ದ ಖರಾಬನ್ನು ತೆರವುಗೊಳಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ , ಸ.ನಂ.49 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗಶಃ ಹಳ್ಳ ದ ಖರಾಬ್ ಇರುವ ಕಡೆ B.D.A. ರವರು ಬಡಾವಣೆ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಸ.ನಂ.48 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗಶಃ ಮನೆಗಳಾಗಿದ್ದು ಪೂರಾ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಹೊಂದಿದ್ದು ಹಳ್ಳ ದ ಖರಾಬಿನ ವಸ್ತು ಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಕಳೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
18. So this document makes it clear that halla shown in the sketch is not in existence. It also shows B.D.A. has formed layout in a portion of Sy. No.49 and the halla at present is not in existence. This document also no where shows rajkaluve passes through the suit land.
20
O.S. No.6768/2014
19. Further Ex.P.42 is the letter submitted by B.B.M.P. to the Hon'ble Upalokayuktha on 13.04.2015 wherein which the B.B.M.P. has stated that the sites of the plaintiff in Sy. No.49 is adjacent to Block-9 of Sir M.Visweswaraiah layout and it is the B.D.A. which is maintaining the said layout and the said property is not handed over to B.B.M.P. and all the developmental works are under taken by B.D.A. and it is stated that as per the sketch prepared by B.D.A. dated 02.12.2009 there is no road on the northern side of the suit schedule sites.
20. Ex.P.43 is the information obtained by the plaintiff under the Right to Information Act regarding the demolition of the compound wall in site No.10 wherein which it is clearly endorsed that the B.B.M.P. has demolished the compound wall put up in site No.10.
21. Ex.P.47 is the show-cause notice issued by B.B.M.P. dated 24.05.2014 wherein which it is stated 21 O.S. No.6768/2014 that the plaintiff has illegally constructed compound wall in site No.1 by encroaching public property which is reserved as public means of access and as per the revenue sketch a pathway and storm water drain passes through the property and sought for demolition of the compound wall put up in the said property. Ex.P.48 shows the plaintiff has issued reply stating that as per the final notification the B.D.A. has dropped 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.49 from acquisition and he has reserved an extent of 2½X40 ft. for passing of drain water and that he has not put up any compound wall illegally in site No.10.
22. He denies that B.B.M.P. has taken possession of encroached property. P.W.1 admits that B.B.M.P. demolished compound wall from northern side to southern side on 25.08.2014 which measured 16.50 ft. width and 40 ft. length and P.W.1 volunteers that storm water drain will not come within the area demolished by B.B.M.P. During his cross-examination 22 O.S. No.6768/2014 Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 photographs are confronted and denies that as on the date of filing of the suit he was not in possession of the suit property. So far as, the notice is concerned P.W.1 says notice was issued in respect of site No.1 but compound wall is demolished in site No.10. This fact is also evident from the documents placed on record which shows that the B.B.M.P. has issued notice for demolition of compound wall in site No.1 and it is an admitted fact that the compound wall which existed in site No.10 is demolished. Further the village map of Mallathahalli village is confronted to P.W.1 and the same is marked as Ex.D.8 and Sy. No.48 is identified as Ex.D.8(a) and Sy. No.49 is identified as Ex.D.8(b) and denies that as per Ex.D.8 a portion of his property from northern to southern side is shown as Korakaluhalla. The suggestion putforth that though there exists halla as per the revenue sketch, he is deposing falsely and has mislead the authority by giving false reply is denied by P.W.1.
23
O.S. No.6768/2014
23. Now so far as the demolition of compound wall is concerned P.W.1 says though the B.B.M.P. had issued notice before demolition of compound wall, he had raised objection and inspite of it, the compound wall is demolished. Ex.D.9 was confronted to P.W.1 and he admits that a road can be seen in the property and denies the suggestion putforth that defendant after demolishing the compound wall has formed the road and to this P.W.1 volunteers that the compound wall shown in Ex.D.9 belongs to him and the compound wall which is adjacent to the temple also belongs to him and Ex.D.10 to Ex.D.16 photographs are confronted and he admits that the road is formed by B.B.M.P. and he says the road is not continued and it ends with his property. The suggestion putforth that though there exists drainage adjacent to the compound wall is deposing falsely is deny and also denies that as per Ex.D.7 the surveyor has specifically mentioned the area shown in blue shade is resurvey No.48, 49 and 36 is halla and 24 O.S. No.6768/2014 P.W.1 volunteers it is not related to the suit property. So all these suggestions putforth elicit relying on the revenue sketch that halla passes through the suit schedule property turned futile. It is necessary to take note of the fact that as per the report of revnue authorities there exists differences with regard to boundary and extent of the land acquired and also that halla is not in existence as the area is fully developed. So all these suggestions about the existence of halla is of no relevance.
24. At this point of time it is necessary to note that, the defendant has not chosen to lead evidence on its behalf and the photographs which were confronted to P.W.1 during cross-examination and relying on the revenue sketch it is contended by the L/c. for the defendant that rajkaluve or storm water drain passes through the suit schedule property and it is a public property which is encroached by the plaintiff. 25
O.S. No.6768/2014
25. But on analysis of the oral testimony of P.W.1 and documents produced by him it establishes that the plaintiff has purchased all the 10 sites i.e, suit schedule property under sale deed dated 17.09.2013 & 17.10.2013 and based on the title deeds all the B.B.M.P. records are transferred to the name of plaintiff. It is necessary to note that the defendant has disputed the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. But it is necessary to note that the only defense raised by B.B.M.P. is that a portion of the property i.e, is part and parcel of site No.10 is a public property and it is encroached by the plaintiff and rajkaluve passes through the said property and hence, it was demolished and road is formed by B.B.M.P.
26. It is evident from the documents placed on record that B.B.M.P. has issued notice to the plaintiff as per Ex.P.47 alleging that the compound wall at site No.1 obstructs a pathway and drain to which the plaintiff has replied by issuing reply notice as per Ex.P.48 and it is 26 O.S. No.6768/2014 clarified that site No.1 does not obstruct any public pathway or rain water drainage. So this shows notice was given for site No.1 and the compound wall which is existed in site No.10 is demolished and in the show- cause notice it is nowhere mentioned that rajkaluve or halla passes through the said property. Further Ex.P.39 which is the clarification letter issued by Tahsildar Bengaluru North Taluk to Hon'ble Upalokayuktha shows that the sites of the plaintiff in Sy. No.49 do not encroach any rajkaluve, halla or storm water drain. Ex.P.41 which is the revenue sketch demonstrates that the halla passes through Sy. No.48 and 49 and the sketch shows the halla does not touch or run across site No.10. So these documents being prepared by the competent revenue authorities it clearly establishes that the plaintiff's compound wall was not built over any public drain and therefore, the alleged allegation of encroachment cannot be considered. It is necessary to note that the defendant has not placed before the Court 27 O.S. No.6768/2014 any document to prove that the plaintiff has encroached the public property which is the rajkaluve and has constructed compound wall and solely relying upon the photographs it cannot be held that the storm water drain or rajkaluve passes through site No.10 of the plaintiff's property and as such, the compound wall was demolished by the defendant. No doubt, the revenue sketch shows that halla passes through Sy. No.49 and 48 and BDA has already formed layout and in view of the development of the area, the halla is not in existence and there are discrepancies as to the extent and boundary of Sy. No.49 subsequent to phodi proceedings. It is an admitted fact that Sy. No.49 totally measured 4 acres 11 guntas including 21 guntas of kharab land and B.D.A. acquired the entire extent of Sy. No.49 under preliminary notification and subsequently under preliminary notification has deleted 30 guntas of land and layout is formed only in the remaining extent of land. So this shows a portion of Sy. No.49 was dropped 28 O.S. No.6768/2014 from acquisition proceedings and later, the erstwhile owners of the remaining extent of 30 guntas of land by executing various deeds have sold the property and plaintiff is the purchaser of all the 10 suit schedule sites. All the title deeds shows towards the northern side, road is in existence and none of these documents shows rajkaluve or the storm water drain passes through the suit schedule sites. It is necessary to note that the plaintiff by placing the title deeds, B.B.M.P. records and report submitted by the Tahsildar has established that rajkaluve do not pass through the suit schedule sites. So under these circumstances, when the defendant has raised a defense that the storm water drain passes through the suit schedule property and it is a public property which is encroached by plaintiff, the burden was upon the defendant by producing cogent documentary evidence to the effect that the halla passes through the remaining extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.49 which was left out from acquisition by B.D.A. So 29 O.S. No.6768/2014 in the absence of convincing documents on record this Court is of opinion that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his possession over the suit schedule sites and that rajakaluve do not pass through the suit schedule sites and it is also evident that notice is issued for demolition of compound wall in site No.1, but it is demolished in site No.10 and though B.B.M.P. has raised a defense that the possession of the property is with the defendant, the same cannot be considered for the reason that B.B.M.P. has only demolished the compound wall and has not taken possession of the site No.1 or site No.10 and the possession has continued with the plaintiff. So though it is an admitted and established fact that the B.B.M.P. has demolished the compound wall and has formed the road and it does not lead to an inference that the possession of the suit schedule sites are with the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that the compound wall put up by the plaintiff in site No.10 was 30 O.S. No.6768/2014 not on any public pathway or rain water drainage and it is also established that the defendants have demolished the compound wall and by this, the interference of the defendant over the suit property is established and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed. Thus in view of the aforesaid reasonings, this Court proceeds to answer the aforesaid issues in the Affirmative.
27. ISSUE NO.4 :: In view of findings on Issues No.1 to 3, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendant is hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
Both parties shall bear the cost of the suit.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 05th day of January, 2026).
(VEENA N.) XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.31
O.S. No.6768/2014 ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFF SIDE :: P.W.1 :: Dhanaraja Babu G. (B) DEFENDANT SIDE :: - NIL -
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFF SIDE ::
Ex.P.1 :: Certified copy of sale deed dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.2 :: Certified copy of property extract Ex.P.3 :: Certified copy of receipt Ex.P.4 :: Certified copy of another sale deed dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.5 :: Certified copy of property extract Ex.P.6 :: Certified copy of receipt Ex.P.7 :: Certified copy of another sale deed dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.8 :: Certified copy of property extract Ex.P.9 :: Certified copy of receipt Ex.P.10 :: Certified copy of another sale deed dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.11 :: Certified copy of property extract Ex.P.12 :: Certified copy of receipt Ex.P.13 :: Certified copy of sale deed dated 17.10.2013 Ex.P.14 :: Certified copy of property extract Ex.P.15 :: Certified copy of receipt 32 O.S. No.6768/2014 Ex.P. 16 :: Certified copy of another sale deed dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.17 :: Certified copy of Uttara patra Ex.P.18 :: Certified copy of property extract Ex.P.19 :: Certified copy of khata certificate Ex.P.20 :: Certified copy of receipt Ex.P.21 :: Certified copy of another sale deed dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.22 :: Certified copy of property extract Ex.P.23 :: Certified copy of receipt Ex.P.24 :: Certified copy of another sale deed dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.25 :: Certified copy of Uttara patra Ex.P.26 :: Certified copy of property extract Ex.P.27 :: Certified copy of khata certificate Ex.P.28 :: Certified copy of receipt Ex.P.29 :: Certified copy of another sale deed dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.30 :: Certified copy of Uttara patra Ex.P.31 :: Certified copy of property extract Ex.P.32 :: Certified copy of khata certificate Ex.P.33 Certified copy of receipt Ex.P.34 Certified copy of another sale deed dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.35 Certified copy of Uttara patra Ex.P.36 Certified copy of property extract Ex.P.37 Certified copy of receipt Ex.P.38 Certified copy of khata certificate Ex.P.39 Certified copy of another sale deed dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.40 Copy of report of Taluk surveyor 33 O.S. No.6768/2014 Ex.P.41 Copy of sketch Ex.P.42 Copy of reply dated 13.04.2015 of AEE, Rajarajeswari Nagar Ex.P.43 Letter dated 18.12.2014 Ex.P.44 Certified copy of RTI application Ex.P.45 Letter of Public Information Officer/ Deputy Registrar, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru Ex.P.46 Received copy of the letter dated 20.01.2025 Ex.P.47 Notice dated 24.05.2014 issued by B.B.M.P. Ex.P.48 Letter dated 12.06.2014 (B) DEFENDANT SIDE ::
Ex.D.1 to 6 photographs
Ex.D.6
Ex.D.7 Revenue sketch in Sy. No.49
Ex.D.8 Village map shows the locality of the suit
property
Ex.D.8(a) Southern side of suit property in Sy. No.48
Ex.D.8(b) Northern side suit property in Sy. No.49
Ex.D.9 Copy of the photo
Ex.D.10 to 7 photos
Ex.D.16
(VEENA N.)
XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.