Bangalore District Court
Narayan Hegde S vs The Commissioner Bbmp on 20 January, 2026
1 O.S.No. 6003/2022
KABC010250212022
Presented on : 15-09-2022
Registered on : 15-09-2022
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 20th day of JANUARY, 2026.
PRESENT: SMT. G.S.PRASEELA KUMARI, B.A.L,LLB.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU.
O.S.No.6003/2022
PLAINTIFF : Sri. NARAYAN S.HEGDE
S/o Sri. Sitaram Hegde,
aged about 72 years,
Residing at No:5,
KothiHosahalli village,
Yelahanka Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.AVA, Adv)
v/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1.The Commissioner,
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike, N.R. Square,
J.C. Road, Bangalore-560002.
2. Assistant Revenue Inspector,
Office of the Assistant Revenue
Inspector, BBMP,
Kodigehalli-Sub-division,
2 O.S.No. 6003/2022
Sahakaranagara, 9th Main Road,
Bangalore.560092.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Office of the Assistant Executive
Engineer Kodigehalli Sub-Division,
BBMP. Bangalore-560092.
4. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Street,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560020.
(By Sri.UKM, advocate
for D1 to D3 and Sri.NS - D4)
Date of Institution of the suit : 15-09-2022
Nature of the suit : INJUNCTION SUIT
Date of commencement of : 29-07-2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 20-01-2026
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
03 04 05
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
The present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his agents, servants, officials, workmen 3 O.S.No. 6003/2022 or anybody claiming through or under them from plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or trying to demolish any portion of the suit schedule property with direction to the defendant to pay the costs with such other reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows:-
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 06-08-2001 from her vendor by name K.Munegowda from the date of the purchase of the suit schedule property the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property, Katha has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff and he is paying upto date tax to the BBMP, katha extract dated 09-05-2012 and assessment extract for the year 2012-13 also reflect the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
3. The plaintiff with an intention to construct the building on the suit schedule property in the year 2004 he had applied for the sanction plan to the BBMP, BBMP approved the plan for construction of the building. Sanction plan in the name of the plaintiff, EC from 1-04-2004 to 20-03-2020 also 4 O.S.No. 6003/2022 stands in the name of the plaintiff which reflect the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On 17-01-2025 the defendant No.2 has issued notice under sec.313 of BBMP Act, 2020 to the plaintiff, called upon to produce the documents of the suit schedule property. Immediately the entire documents submitted to the defendant No.2 but on 24-05-2022 again the defendant No.3 has issued notice to the plaintiff and calling upon the plaintiff to produce the documents of the suit schedule property. Once again the plaintiff has replied to the notice.
4. The officials of the defendants threatened to the plaintiff saying that the building of the plaintiff would be demolished in future. Immediately plaintiff having no other option issued the statutory notice dated 08-07-2022 and calling upon the defendant to stop the unnecessary harassment to the plaintiff. The notices were duly served upon the defendant but none of the defendants have replied to the statutory notice not issued any other notice as per the provisions of the KMC Act and BDA Act. The officials of the defendant No.2 and 3 are making threat to demolish building on the suit schedule property. They have also threatened that they would bring more force and material to demolish the building. As 5 O.S.No. 6003/2022 such, without any alternative remedy the plaintiff has come up with the present suit. The cause of action arose on 17-01-2022, 24-05-2022, in the month of September 2022, 08-07-2022 and 14-07-2022. The suit property is situated within the jurisdiction of the court, the suit is well within time and payment of court fee is sufficient. Hence, prays for judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Defendant No.1 to 3 appeared before this court and also filed the Written Statement and submits that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought in the suit. It is submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. According to the defendants BBMP are the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. 1.26 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/1 situated at Kothihosahalli village is now under the BBMP jurisdiction at ward No.8.
The above said land is Inaam land.
Sri. Munithimmaiah and others were in possession of that land. As per Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inaam Abolition Act, 1954 Munithimmaiah, Peru-mamma, Pothalappa and Marappa and others have filed the application pertaining to property in Sy.No.1/1, 5/1,15/1 situated at Kothihosahalli village before Spl.Dy.Commissioner for Abolition of Inaams in case 6 O.S.No. 6003/2022 LA3-CASE 13/1956-57 after enquiry on 18-03-1985 Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inaams passed orders and registering them as permanent tenants under Sec.5(1) of the Act.
6. The State of Karnataka has issued preliminary notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, on 13-01-1983 proposing to acquire the lands for the purpose of WIT for the construction to the member of M/s.CIN Employees House Building Co- operative Society Ltd. In the acquired land the name of the Kathedar shown as Ganga S/o. Jula, in the relevant column the Anubhavadar the name of Munithimmaiah, Perumamma, Pothalappa and Marappa was shown. In the notification dated 13-01-1983 land bearing Sy.No.15/1 measuring 1.26 guntas also included. State of Karnataka has also issued final notification under Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 04-03-1955. after 6(1) notification SLAO issued notice to the entrusted persons and land owners under Sec.9 and 10 of the Act. All the interested persons, the land owners have participated during the course of the award proceedings and consented for passing consent award to the extent of 1.26 guntas of land and 02 guntas of Phut Karab in Sy.No.15/1. After the consent award passed by the SLAO the award amount was paid to the land owners 7 O.S.No. 6003/2022 as per the claims. After passing award notification dated 08-05-1985 that notification was also published in the gazette. The possession of the land in Sy.No.15/1 measuring 1.26 guntas and 02 guntas of Kharab has been taken by the SLAO and handed over to the society. SLAO has issued notification dated 12-05-1987 regarding the taken possession under Sec.16(1) of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the above said measurement in Sy.No.15/1. Even gazette notification also published on 04-06-1987. That notification also issued under 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
7. M/s. CIL Employees House Building Co- operative Society has executed the relinquishment deed dated 17-11-1996 in favour fo the BDA as per the registered document. In that relinquishment deed measuring 41.08 guntas including Sy.No.15/1 for the purpose of formation of parks, roads in accordance with the approved layout plan. According to the defendant No.1 to 3 sketch prepared by the BDA in respect of the land in Sy.No.15/1 and other survey numbers and sketch reflect that survey number 15/1 is in park area used for civil amenities. Now the park is under the jurisdiction of the BBMP. As per Section 8 of the Parks, Play fields and open space reservation of regulation Act, 1984 which 8 O.S.No. 6003/2022 reflects as follows:-
"prohibition of construction of building etc., (1) No person shall construct any building or put up any structure likely to affect the utility of the park, play field or open space or make any encroachment in or over any park, play filed or open space specified in the list published under section 4 and Provided that the executive authority may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, permit the construction of such buildings or putting up of such structures as may be necessary for the improvement or more beneficial utilization of the park, play-field or open space.
(2) No land or building within a park, play-field or open space specified in the list published under section 4 or section 5 shall be alienated by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange, mortgage or otherwise and no licence for the use of any such land or buildings for any other purposes shall be granted and any alienation made or licence granted in contravention of this section shall be null and void."
8. CQAL Housing Society filed Writ petition No.50916/2019 against the BBMP and others and 9 O.S.No. 6003/2022 stating that the society has formed a residential layout in an extent of 41.08 guntas of Kothyhosahalli village, that layout have been approved by the BDA as per resolution dated 06- 12-1992, by virtue of the relinquishment an extent of 269490 sqft towards the formation of parks in the approved layout. The society in the Writ Petition has stated that there has been encroachment of land which are preserved for parks. Inspite of request to the BDA no steps have been evict the unauthorised occupants and encroachers from the area which reserved for parks.
9. The plaintiff is claiming as owner of the plaint schedule property which acquired by her from K.Munegowda who alienated the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 06- 08-2001. According to the defendant No.1 to 3 as alleged by the plaintiff K.Munegowda purchased the property from Jagadish as per registered sale deed dated 10-10-1996 and Katha stands in his name. In Sy.No.15/1 property bearing Site No.5 carved out in Byadarayanapura, Katha issued by the BBMP.
10 O.S.No. 6003/202210. According to the defendant No.1 to 3 previous vendor of the plaintiff pertaining to the plaint schedule property had not right, title and interest over it. The sale deeds executed by the previous owners are not lawful as such plaintiff cannot claim any right over the suit schedule property. By misleading the BBMP the plaintiff got transferred the Katha in her name or previous vendors name. But Katha does not confirm ownership or title to the plaintiff. After acquisition of the land by the Government all sale transactions are void transactions.
As per Sec.67 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, with respect to the public road reflect that:-
"Public Road etc., and all lands which are not the property of others, belongs to the Government -All public roads, streets, lanes and parks, bridges, ditches, dikes and trenches, or beside the same, the bed of the sea, and of Harbour and creeks below high water mark and of Rivers, Streams, Nalas, Lakes and tanks and all canons and water courses and all standing and flowing water and all hands wherever situated which are not the property of 11 O.S.No. 6003/2022 individual of the aggregate of persons legally capable of holding property and except in so far as rights of such persons may established in or over the same and except as may be otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force are and are hereby declared to be with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, the property of the State Government.
11. When the plaintiff has no title, no lawful possession and ownership, as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. BBMP is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Due to the Katha stands in the name of the plaintiff pertaining to the suit schedule property the defendant No.1 and 3 have filed petition bearing No.15/2022 before the regional Commissioner for cancellation of the Katha standing in the name of the plaintiff.
12. The plaintiff or her family members are not having any lawful ownership or possession over the suit schedule property. All the relevant documents relied by the plaintiff or concocted, created and fabricated. Since from the date of acquisition CIL, BDA now BBMP is in possession and maintaining the 12 O.S.No. 6003/2022 park area and site is situated as shown in the plaint. The plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and hence prays for dismissal of the same with exemplary costs. The plaintiff with an intention t make lawful gain by misleading the court filed false and frivolous suit. Hence, prays for dismissal fo the suit with exemplary costs.
13. Defendant no.4 files Written Statement and denied the case of the defendant. According to the PW.1 the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has not issued notice as per Sec.64 of the BDA Act. On that ground itself the suit is bad in law. The ownership and possession of the plaintiff is also denied.
14. It is submitted by the defendant No.4 that M/s. CIL Employees House Building Co-operative Society hgas executed a relinquishment deed dated 17-11-1996 in favour of the BDA to an extent of 41.08 guntas in Sy.NO.15/1 for the purpose of formation of parks, roads, etc in accordance with the approved plan. As per the approved layout plan Sy.No.15/1 is park area used for civic amenity purpose. BDA has handed over the park area to the 13 O.S.No. 6003/2022 BBMP. No cause of action against the defendant No.4. Hence, plaintiff is not entitle for any relief and prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
15. Heard on both sides.
16. In support of the case of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9. During the cross-examination of PW.1 the learned counsel for the defendant No1 to 3 confronted Ex.D1 to 4 but no oral evidence on behalf of the defendants.
17. On the basis of the pleadings, My predecessor in office has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Does the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit?
2. Does the plaintiff proves that it is the defendants have interfered with his possession and enjoyment of suit property?
3. Does the plaintiff proves to grant perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession ar enjoyment of suit property?
4. What order?14 O.S.No. 6003/2022
18. My findings on the above issues are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1:- In the Negative ISSUE NO.2:- In the Negative ISSUE NO.3:- In the Negative ISSUE No.4:- As per final order For the following:-
REASONS
19. ISSUE NO.1:-
In Issue No.1 the plaintiff has to prove that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. In order to prove this issue PW.1 reiterated the entire plaint averments in his chief examination. In the chief examination PW.1 has stated that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 21-03-2003. Subsequent to that the entire revenue records got mutated in the name of the plaintiff. Regarding it on careful perusal of the documents produced by the plaintiff which got marked as Ex.P1. Sale deed dated 21-03-2003 executed in favour of the plaintiff herein by name K.Munegowda. The purchaser of the property is none other than the plaintiff by name Narayan.S.Hegde, the total sale consideration is shown in the sale deed which reflect that Rs.2,31,000/-. On the date of the execution of the 15 O.S.No. 6003/2022 sale deed itself the possession of the property also handed over to the plaintiff. The description of the property at Ex.P1 is also nothing but the description as shown in the plaint. Ex.P2 is Assessment register extract for the year 2003-04 which goes to show that plaintiff shown as owner of the property which reflect the description of the property and also the tax paid by the plaintiff. Ex.P3 is the Katha certificate dated 15-05-2012 issued from the BBMP shown as the name of the plaintiff as owner and possessor of the land. Ex.P4 is the Katha extract issued from the BBMP also reflect the name of the plaintiff as owner and possessor of the property. Ex.P5 is the tax paid receipt which reflect that for the year 2022-23 the plaintiff herein has paid tax to the BBMP. Ex.P6 has been approved by the BBMP regarding the construction of the house in the suit schedule property bearing site No.5. Ex.P7 is the encumbrance from 01-06-1989 to 22-03-2003 reflect that K.Munegowda had executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 21-03-2003.
20. All the above said documents nodoubt reflect the registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and also his possession over the suit schedule property. In the plaint averments as well as in the evidence of PW.1 in a categorical wordings 16 O.S.No. 6003/2022 he has deposed that originally 0-11 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/1 belongs to Munithimmaiah. Munithimmaiah executed the registered GPA in favour of Jagadish. On the basis of the GPA 0-11 guntas of land alienated by Jagadish in favour of K.Munegowda and after acquiring the right, title and interest in respect of 0-11 guntas of land Sri.Munegowda formed sites and sold one such site to the plaintiff as per the registered sale deed dated 21-03-2003. In order to prove the above said oral evidence the plaintiff not produced any relevant documents regarding GPA executed in favour of Jagadish and sale deed executed by Jagadish on the basis of GPA in favour of K.Munegowda. In the absence of this document, it is crystal clear that plaintiff not produced title deed of his vendor and title deed of his vendor's vendor.
21. But in the evidence of PW.1 as well as in the plaint averments he has narrated that originally land in Sy.No.15/1 belongs to Munithimmaiah. Munithimmaiah executed the GPA in favour of Jagadish. On the strength of the GPA Jagadish sold the 0-11 guntas of land in favour of K.Munegowda. Munegowda after acquiring the right, title and interest in respect of 0-11 guntas of land formed site and thereafter sold the one such site No.5 as 17 O.S.No. 6003/2022 shown in the plaint in favour of the plaintiff herein. But on careful perusal of the entire document produced by the plaintiff which got marked Ex.P1 to P9. Mother deed i.e., original land stands in the name of Munithimmaiah but no document is produced before this court. Even the GPA executed by Munithimmaiah in favour of Jagadish is also not produced before this court. According to PW.1, Jagadish on the strength of the registered GPA alienated the 0-11 guntas of land in favour of K.Munegowda. Even that document also not produced before this court. According to the PW.1 Sri.Munegowda after acquiring the 0-11 guntas of land formed sites but no conversion order, approved plan from the concerned authority is produced by the plaintiff. Even regarding the formation of the layout and the sites as shown in the schedule reflect in the sanction plan also not produced before this court. Except Ex.P1 no registered document of the vendor of the plaintiff or original owner Munithimmaiah and K.Munegowda not produced before the court to establish the lawful ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
22. By keeping in mind these important aspects, on careful perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 to 3 in the written statement itself in para No.5 defendant No.1 to 3 have 18 O.S.No. 6003/2022 contended that entire 1.26 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/1 is a Inaamthi land. Sri.Munithimmaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the Inaamthi land, regarding the nature of the land and owner of the land as well as the possession of Munithimmaiah, Peru-mamma, Pothalappa and Marappa, defendant No.1 to 3 has contended that property in Sy.No.15/1, 5/1 and 1/1 situated at Kothihosahalli village granted in the name of the above said tenants as per Sec.5(1) of the Act, by order dated 18-03-1985. Apart from that defense of the defendant No.1 to 3 is that, as per the notification under Sec.4(1) of the land Acquisition Act dated 13-01-1983 the Government of Karnataka has issued the preliminary notification for the purpose of construction of the house to the members of M/s.CIL Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bengaluru. In the preliminary notification the name of the Kathedar shown as Ganga S/o. Jula but in the column of Anubhavadhar the name of Munithimmiah, Peru-mamma, Pothalappa and Marappa are shown. As per the final notification 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vide Notification No. RD172AQB 84 dated 04-03-1985 also issued by the Government of Karnataka. Subsequent to that final notification Spl. LAO issued notice to the interested persons ie., 19 O.S.No. 6003/2022 land owners as per Section 9 and 10 of the Act. Immediately, after the receipt of the notice, interested persons and land owners have participated during the course of award proceedings who consented for passing the consent award with respect to 1.26 guntas of land and 0.2 guntas of Phut Karabh in Sy.No.15/1, consent award also passed. On 01-10-1986 the award amount also paid by the SLAO to the concerned owner of the land. After the award notification dated 08-05-1987 it has been published in the gazette. As per notification dated 12-05-1987 under Sec.16(1) of the Act, the above said land taken by the authorities and handed over to the Co-operative Society for the purpose of formation of sites. Even Gazette notification also issued on 04-06-1987 which has been duly published. Another defense taken by the defendant No.1 to 3 is that M/s. CIL Employees House Building Co-operative Society has executed Relinquishment deed dated 17-11-1996 in favour of the BDA. By virtue of that release deed 41.8 guntas of land including the property in Sy.No.15/1 taken over by the BDA for the purpose of formation of park, road in accordance with the approved layout plan. Apart from that the defense of the defendant No.1 to 3 is that BBMP is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The entire suit schedule 20 O.S.No. 6003/2022 property along with other land in Sy.No.15/1 came under the BBMP. The BBMP has taken proper steps to take back the possession of the property by way of issuance of statutory notice. According to the defendant No.1 to 3 the vendor of the plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. When such being the case, valid title not transferred to the plaintiff. When defendant No.1 to 3 claiming their absolute right, title and possession over the suit schedule property, under such circumstances suit for bare injunction as prayed in the suit itself is not maintainable. Even during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 has argued that suit for simple bare injunction is not maintainable.
23. By keeping in mind, the prayer as well as issues, and on perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1 even in the cross-examination he has clearly admitted that he is very much acquainted with the averments of the written statement, pleadings of defendant No.1 to 3 and other documents filed along with the written statement. According to him he do not know the do not know the larger extent of land in Sy.No. 15/1 of Kothihosahalli. Munithimayya was the original owner of the land bearing Sy.No. 15/1. He has not produced any RTC showing that at any 21 O.S.No. 6003/2022 point of time, any portion of land in Sy.No. 15/1 was stands in the name of Mr.Munithimayya. He has not produced the title deeds of my vendor's vendor. He do not know when did her vendor Munegowda got purchased the suit schedule property. Even according to him, he has not produced any Katha issued by the BBMP during the course of his evidence. Regarding the conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose has asserted by her defendant No.1 to 3 in the cross-examination he has clearly admitted that he do not know whether land bearing Sy.No.15/1 was got converted for non agricultural purpose. It is her vendor Munegowda formed the layout in Sy.No.15/1. He had no knowledge whether her vendor after obtaining the approved layout plan from any competent authority had formed the layout in Sy.No. 15/1. Munegowda got purchased the land bearing Sy.No.15/1 from the GPA holder of landlord Munithimayya. He has not produced any document to show as on the date of sale of land bearing Sy.No. 15/1 in favor of Munegowda, does Mr.Munithimayya had any semblance of right on the said land. Even he has not produced the GPA of Munithimayya executed in favor of his agent.
24. According to PW.1 as he admitted that suit site 22 O.S.No. 6003/2022 CQAL layout is adjacent to the area where the suit property is situated. Suit site is situated in the Kothihasahalli but he do not know based on which document, the schedule and measurement of site has been described in her sale deed at Ex.P.1. He has not produced the layout plan to show or identify the location of suit site no.5. He do not know the number of sites carved in Sy.No. 15/1 by her vendor. By keeping in mind the above said cross- examination of PW.1 on perusal of Ex.P1 it reflect that, "site No.5 is situated in Sy.No.15/1, Katha Number shown as 443" Except Ex.P1 no other relevant sale deed of the vendor or vendor's vendor of the plaintiff not produced before this court.
25. Regarding the defense of the defendant No.1 to 3 as contended in the written statement on careful perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1 he has clearly admitted that, " It is true to suggest that defendant No.1 to 3 in their written statement have pleaded that suit site is situated at CQAL layout'. After knowing the written statement averments of defendant No.1 to 3 shall made no efforts to find out whether the real suit site comes within CQAL layout. It is also admitted that as per the document which now shown to her there is a reference shown that land measuring 2-43 guntas in 23 O.S.No. 6003/2022 Sy.No.15/1 has been notified for acquisition on 19-05-1993. Regarding that acquisition he categorically admitted that it is true to suggest that document which now shown to me is the said notification. PW.1 during the course of cross- examination admitted the document which got marked the said notification as Ex.D1. With respect to the acquisition proceedings in the cross-examination, it is elicited by the defendant No.1 to 3 which reads thus:-
It is true to suggest that as per the document dated 03-10-1992 which now shown to me, the SLAO had handed over the 1 acre 15 guntas of fine land and 2 guntas of Karab of Sy.No. 15/1 in of Kothihosahalli in favor of CIL employees HBCS Ltd, as the witness admits the document the same is marked as Ex.D.2.
With respect to the defense of the defendant No.1 to 3 regarding Ex.D4 which confronted to the PW.1 he has clearly admitted that:-
it is true to suggest that as per the document which now shown to me there is a reference showing that against to the acquisition of 1.26 guntas including 0-2 guntas of Karabh land.
SLAO passed award in favour of Munithimmaiah and 24 O.S.No. 6003/2022 others.
26. The counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 in cross-examination of PW.1 confronted Ex.D1 to D4.
Ex.D1 notification dated 13-01-1983 issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act reflect that property in Sy.No.15/1 measuring 2 acres but extent deleted is 0-29 guntas in total 1.15 guntas of land, name of the Kathedar shown as Ganga S/o. Juja, name of as Anubhavdhar shown as Munithimmaiah, Peru-mamma, Pothalappa and Marappa. The above said land notified by the Government of Karnataka for acquisition of the property. On perusal of Ex.D2 official memorandum dated 03-10-1992 reflect that the possession of the extent of 4.1 guntas of land in Kothihosahalli village have been given to M/s. CIL Employees House Building Co-operative Society on 03-10-1992. The measurement of the land in Sy.No.15/1 shown as 1.15 guntas of land along with 02 guntas of Phut Karab land. Ex.D4 award passed by SLAO dated 1-10-1986 reflect that in Sy.No.15/1 measuring 1.26 guntas of land along with 02 guntas of Phut Karab acquired by SLAO and award passed by the concerned authority. All the above said documents itself goes to show that much earlier to the execution of Ex.P1 dated 06-08-2001 the suit schedule property which is part and parcel of the 25 O.S.No. 6003/2022 property in Sy.No.15/1 notified by the Government of Karnataka as per notification under Sec.4(1) and 6(1) of the LAC Act. Even award also passed by the SLAO, award notice also issued to the owner of the property in Sy.No.15/1 and informed about the compensation fixed regarding the acquisition of the land.
27. According to PW.1, in the cross-examination he has clearly admitted that after purchasing the suit site he got the property assessed in the then, CMC they have been issued assessment extract as per Ex.P2 and Katha also got mutated in the office of BBMP. By virtue of the cross-examination and Ex.D1 to D4 as well as the defense in the written statement the defendant No.1 to 3 it is crystal clear that the defendants categorically denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. When there is cloud regarding the title as well as the possession of the property, then suit for bare injunction itself is not maintainable. In support of it, Defendant No.1 to 3 relied upon the citations / rulings reported in AIR (2008) SCC 2022 Anathula Sudhakar v/s. P.Buchi Reddy represented by Lrs. On careful perusal of the observation of Hon'b le Supreme Court, it held that:-
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a 26 O.S.No. 6003/2022 suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiffs lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless 27 O.S.No. 6003/2022 there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the Court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter Involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the Court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some 28 O.S.No. 6003/2022 meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The Court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.
28. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 has relied upon the ruling reported in ILR 2007 KAR 339 in between Sri.Aralappa vs Sri Jagannath and Others. In this ruling the Hon'ble High Court has held that:-
(B)SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963- SECTION 34-Declaration of status or right-Discretion of Court-Held, In a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to prove his title to the property and also his possession over the property on the date of the suit-Further held, when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property on the date of the suit, relief of permanent injunction is not an appropriate consequential relief- The appropriate relief consequential to declaration of ownership would be
29. By virtue of this ruling also, when there is a 29 O.S.No. 6003/2022 dispute regarding the title of the property and also possession over the property on the date of filing of suit, under such circumstances only relief for permanent injunction is not a appropriate consequential relief. This ruling is also aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the written statement also the defendants have taken a defense that the suit schedule property is the absolute property of BBMP and that particular property is meant for park. Apart from that the possession of the property also already taken over by the BBMP by virtue of the relinquishment deed executed by the society in favour of the society. On that ground the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Apart from this, on perusal of the rulings relied by the counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2996 in between Smt.Siriyala and Others v/s B.N.Ramesh. In this ruling the Hon'ble High court held that:-
ON FACTS, HELD - In the facts and circumstances of the case, the approach of the first Appellate Court was inconsistent with the first principle that ought to have been applied when title to the property in a suit for bare injunction is shown to be clouded. Hence, the proper course in a case of 30 O.S.No. 6003/2022 this nature is to relegate the parties to a comprehensive suit for declaration, title and consequential reliefs. By virtue of this observation, the suit filed by the plaintiff is only for bare injunction without comprehensive suit for declaration,title, possession and consequential relief as not maintainable.
30. When the title possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property categorically denied by the defendants, then it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff and burden upon the plaintiff to prove that to make out his title and entitlement to the possession. He cannot succeed on any weakness in title or possession of defendant. No doubt in a case on hand, defendant No.1 to 4 only filed written statement not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. But the entire defense of the defendant elicited during the course of cross- examination of PW.1. Even the acquisition proceeding also admitted by PW.1 during the course of cross- examination on the basis of the confronted documents which got marked as Ex.D1 to D4, as such the case of the plaintiff regarding his lawful possession over the suit schedule property is in no way established on the strength of the oral and documentary evidence.
31. In this judgment, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 31 O.S.No. 6003/2022 On the basis of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indira Bhat v. Commissioner BDA, Bangalore AIR 1998 KARNATAKA 386 and also in another case Birendra Paswan v. State of Bihar AIR 2021 PATNA 108 told that as per Section 9 of the CPC, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any civil case with respect to the property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal filed by the appellant also dismissed on the ground that the suit is not maintainable as the Civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the take cognizance of the suit under Section 9 of the CPC in way of the bar under the Land Acquisition Act. The guidelines and observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Brijesh Reddy case and in another case also followed by the Apex Court and dismissed the appeal.
32. In view of the above-said observation, A case between B.K. Nanjundaiah and others v. The B.D.A., Bangalore and another AIR 1988 KARNATAKA 227 and Dr. H.N. Bhargava v. University of Sagar, and anothe AIR 1974 MADHYA PRADESH 40 in SLP No. 33813 of 2011 and RFA No. 2373 of 2007 the Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank AIR 2007 SC 2198 , it is crystal clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no. 1 to 4 is not Maintainable.
32 O.S.No. 6003/202233. When the State of Government also taken possession of the entire property in Sy.No.15/1, when the plaintiff not produced the title deed of the vendors of the plaintiff and vendor's vendor then without any hesitation, I answer Issue No.1 in the Negative.
34. ISSUE NO.2:- In issue No.2 the plaintiff has to prove that it is the defendants have interfered with his possession and enjoyment of suit property. In issue No.1 this court has already come to the conclusion that in view of the Ex.D1 to D4 the plaintiff is not in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is part and parcel of the property in Sy.No.15/1. Inspite of that, regarding the interference on careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, in the chief examination he has stated that "Defendant No.1 to 3 in their written statement have contended that the suit schedule property along with remaining property in Sy.No.15/1 acquired by the Government and handed over the Housing society for formation of the residential sites." Even according to them as per the acquisition proceedings the entire property acquired by the State Government. But the BBMP who are none other than the defendant No.1 to 3 made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
33 O.S.No. 6003/202235. By virtue of this evidence of PW.1 regarding the interference and on careful perusal of the cross- examination PW.1 has clearly admitted that, "It is true to suggest that the BBMP got issued the notice stating that, as the suit site appears to be within the land meant for park, thus they demanded me to produce the title deeds of the suit property. It is true to suggest that I have not produced the notice of the D.1 to 3 issued to me, in my evidence. I have no impediment to produce the said notice in my evidence. It is also admitted that, it is true to suggest that after issuance of notice by D.1 to 3 plaintiff filed the suit before this court. He has also not produced an acknowledgment to show submitting of documents sought by the D.1 to 3. He do not remember the date and month on which the D.1 to 3 visited the suit property along with JCB Machine by threatening to demolish the suit property, but it was in the year 2022. by alleging the interference from D.1 to 3, I have not lodged any complaint with the police. I do not remember the date and month on which the D.1 to 3 visited the suit property along with JCB Machine by threatening to demolish the suit property, but it was in the year 2022. with respect to the interference from D.1 to 3, as admitted by PW.1 he has not lodged any complaint with the police."
34 O.S.No. 6003/202236. The above said cross-examination itself goes to show that no specific evidence regarding the interference by the defendants. Except notice issued by the defendant No.1 to 3 to the plaintiff and called upon her to produce the relevant documents pertaining to the suit schedule property, apart from that suit schedule property as admitted by PW.1 shown as land meant for park in the notice issued by BBMP.
37. Even that notice received by the plaintiff not produced before this court. Mere issuance of the notice by the defendant authority itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the defendants authority is interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Regarding the plaint schedule property in the cross-examination PW.1 has clearly admitted that he do not know whether the layout plan which now shown to me is the layout plan approved in favour of M/s. CIL House Building Co-operative society Limited. He do not know whether the BDA issued a approved plan in favor of above said society in the lands bearing Sy.No.15/1 and other survey numbers in all measuring 41 acres 8 guntas of Kothihosahalli village. Even the PW1 has no knowledge about whether CIL House Building Co- operative ltd on 17.11.1996 had executed the 35 O.S.No. 6003/2022 relinquishment deed by transferring all the roads, park areas and other civic amenities properties. According to the defendants the suit schedule property is meant for park but PW.1 in her cross-examination he has deposed that he do not know whether on 08.01.2001 the BDA had handed over the park area situated in land bearing Sy.No. 15/1 of Kothihosahalli Village, to develop it as park and to maintain it. Regarding the visit by the officials of the BDA, PW.1 in the cross- examination in a clear cut wordings as admitted that, "it is true to suggest that no officials attached to the BDA have visited my property and caused an interference."
38. When PW.1 himself has admitted that officials attached to BDA visit the spot, under such circumstances the interference by the officials of the defendant authority does not arise. The entire evidence of PW.1 not support the interference by the defendants. When the lawful possession of the plaintiff itself is not proved then the interference by the defendants is not proved by the plaintiff through oral or documentary evidence. If really the defendants authority unlawfully interfered with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property being a ordinary prudent man, the plaintiff is at liberty to lodge a complaint against the defendant's 36 O.S.No. 6003/2022 authority or officials of defendants before the jurisdictional police station. But no such effort is made by the plaintiff. Even the notice issued by the defendants authority not produced before this court. When the defendants authority in accordance with law as per the provisions of the BBMP Act got issued notice to the plaintiff, under such circumstances the action taken by the defendants as per provisions of the Act is in no way comes within the meaning of interference. Hence, without any hesitation on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, I answer Issue No.2 in the Negative.
39. ISSUE NO.3:-
In view of the discussions on Issue No.1 and 2 the plaintiff is not entitle for any relief as prayed for, regarding it, the Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the ruling reported in 2013 Part (3) SCC 66 in a case of BDA V.s Brijesh Reddy. As per this ruling, the respondent filed a suit in OS No.4267/1996 on the file of the Court of 60th Additional City Civil Court at Bangalore for permanent injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable. Being aggreived by that order, the respondent filed RFA No. 04.07.2003. But Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal as per Order dated 27.07.2005. Being aggreived by that 37 O.S.No. 6003/2022 order, again the appellant preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In that case, the only point for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is that in this appeal is whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit when the scheduled lands were acquired under the land acquisition proceedings and whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court without examining the question with regard to the maintainability of the suit.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in its observation, at paragraph No.8, which reflect that as per Section 9 of the CPC, the courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of the civil nature, excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. By virtue of the above-said provision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with regard to the particular matter is, can be, said to be excluded. If there is an express provision or by implication, it can be inferred that the jurisdiction is taken away. On the basis of Section 9 of the CPC, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act are required to be published in a manner contemplated thereunder. The inference 38 O.S.No. 6003/2022 gives conclusiveness to the public purpose and the extent of the land mentioned therein. The award should be made under Section 11 as emphasized thereunder. The dissatisfied claimant is provided with remedy of reference under Section 18 and a further appeal under Section 54 of the Act.
40. With detailed observations regarding the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and also Section 9 of the CPC, in paragraph No.15, it is held that having regard to the fact that the acquisition proceedings had been completed way back in the year 1960-1970, the plaintiffs who purchased the suit land in 1995 cannot have any right to maintain the suit of this nature particularly against defendant No.1 and 2, namely the BDA. The High Court clearly erred in reminding the matter when the suit was not maintainable on the face of it. The High Court failed to take note of the fact that even in the plaint itself, the respondents herein have stated that the suit land was acquired and yet they purchased the suit land in 1995 and undoubtedly have to face the consequences. The possession rests with the BDA way back in 1967 and 1978, and all the details have been asserted in the written statement. Hence, the remittal order cannot be sustained.
39 O.S.No. 6003/202241. The above said observation is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Even in the present case also, 4(1) notification, 6(1) notification, 16(1) notification and award passed by the concerned authority. The owner and Anubhavadar of the property already received the award amount. When such being the case, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, subsequent to 4(1), 6(1) notification is having no santity in the eyes of law. In view of Ex.D1 to 4, the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is not maintainable. This Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in the present form. The only remedy available to the plaintiff as per reference under Section 18 and Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case.
42. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 has relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is non-reportable in Civil Appeal No. 33813/2011 in between H.N.Jagannatha and others vs. State of Karnataka. In this ruling Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon the observation of The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and others Vs. Brijesh Reddy and another reported in 2013 Part (3) SCC 66. Even in the above said Civil Appeal also, Respondent 40 O.S.No. 6003/2022 No.4 in the appeal had filed suit for injunction in respect of the disputed property before 10th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS.No.10488/1985 against the BDA on 28.06.1985. In para No. 13 of the Judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court held that this court has repeatedly held in a number of judgments that by implication the power of a Civil Court to take cognizance of such cases under Section 9 of the CPC stands excluded and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further observed that it is only the High Court which will consider such matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. So, the Civil Suit per se is not maintainable for adjudicating the validity or otherwise of the acquisition notifications and proceedings arising therefrom.
43. By virtue of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Brijesh Reddy case, as well as in a similar view taken by the Apex Court in Lakshmichand and others /vs/ Grama Panchayat Kararia and others reported in 1 1996 Part (7) SCC 218;
Sri. Girish Vyas and Anr v. State of Maharashtra and Ors reported in 2012 Part (3) SCC 619;
State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and 41 O.S.No. 6003/2022 others reported in 1995 Part (4) SCC 229; Commissioner BDA versus K.S. Narayan reported in 2006 (8) SCC 336;
M/s. Muttha Associates and others v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 Part (14) SCC 304.
Considering all the observations in the above said judgment, it is held that the acquisition proceedings relating to the lands which are acquired under the provisions of the BDA Act or under the Land Acquisition Act. In all the judgments, similar questions arose as to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the validity of the acquisition notifications are not there.
44. By virtue of the above-said discussion, Hon'ble Apex Court held that, in our considered opinion, it is a clear case of contempt committed by the respondent No.4 by repeatedly approaching the court of law for almost the same relief which was negativated by the court for 3 decades. But, we decline to initiate contempt proceedings and to impose heavy costs under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. With such observation, Apex Court held that in any land acquired as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and 4(1) and 6(1) notification issued with respect to any property, then Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit even suit for permanent injunction.
42 O.S.No. 6003/2022Another ruling cited by the learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 to 3 reported in 2017 Part (2) AKR 695 in between BDA v/s. Bhagawan Das Patel.
45. In this ruling Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para No.4 narrated the case of the plaintiff that, he is the absolute owner of the property as per the registered sale deed dated 23-10-1999, he had physical possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of registration of the sale deed and all the revenue records got mutated in his name but BDA authority made an attempt to demolish the existing structure on the property. As such, the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration to declare himself as the absolute owner and also restrained the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, due to the threat by BDA to demolish the existing building. In that suit trial court has framed in all 4 issues as observed in para No.8 of the Judgment with respect to the issues, which reads thus:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that they are the absolute owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants?
3) Whether the defendant proves that the 43 O.S.No. 6003/2022 suit is not maintainable for want of mandatory notice as contemplated under Section 64 of BDA Act?
4) Whether the defendant proves that the suit schedule land absolutely belongs to it, free from all encumbrances and is at liberty to dispose the same in the best interest of the general public?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for?
6) To what order and decree?
46. Regarding this issue in the observation the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para No.30 has framed the point for consideration as Whether the Civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the suit under the provisions of Section 9 of the CPC?
In the light of the above conclusion, the contention of the defendant that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, assumes significance in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another - vs -
44 O.S.No. 6003/2022Brijesh Reddy and Another reported in (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 66 and is required to be upheld.
47. In order to come to the conclusion regarding the above said point in para No.33 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in BDA and Another - vs - Brijesh Reddy and Another reported in (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 66 and the relevant para also reported in the Judgment which reads thus:-
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore cited judgment has been pleased to hold as follows :-
"8. The only point for consideration in this appeal is: whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit when the schedule lands were acquired under the land acquisition proceedings and whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial court without examining the question with regard to the maintainability of the suit?
14. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting those that are expressly or impliedly barred which reads as under: "9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred:- The courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly 45 O.S.No. 6003/2022 barred." From the above provision, it is clear that courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly 33 barred. The jurisdiction of civil court with regard to a particular matter can be said to be excluded if there is an express provision or by implication it can be inferred that the jurisdiction is taken away. An objection as to the exclusion of civil court's jurisdiction for availability of alternative forum should be taken before the trial court and at the earliest failing which the higher court may refuse to entertain the plea in the absence of proof of prejudice."
48. Apart from that the Hon'ble High Court also relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar. The relevant para also reported in para No.34 which reads thus:-
19. 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 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It is true that there is no challenge to the acquisition proceedings.
However, in view of the assertion of BAD, in their written statements, about the initiation of acquisition proceedings ending with the passing of award, handing over 46 O.S.No. 6003/2022 possession and subsequent action, etc. the 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 35 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 the 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 shown that their vendor was in possession which entitles them for grant of permanent injunction from evicting them from the scheduled property without due process of law by the defendants. In the light of the specific assertion coupled with materials 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 view that the High Court is not right in remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal (underlining by me).
47 O.S.No. 6003/202249. On the basis of the nature of the suit filed by Sri.Bhagavandas Patel against the BDA, on the basis of the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Brijesh Reddy case as well as Dhirendra Kumar's case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para No.35 to 37 has come to the conclusion that in view of the acquisition of the land, suit of any nature including suit one for bare injunction is not maintainable. The relevant para reads thus:-
35. It is pertinent to note the prohibition contained in the said ruling. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in 36 the light of specific assertion coupled with the material in the written statement about the acquisition of the land, suit of any nature, including one for bare injunction is not maintainable.
36. In the considered opinion of this Court the silence maintained by the plaintiff with regard to the identity of the property is probably motivated as otherwise the trial Court would have refused to exercise its jurisdiction.
37. In view of the above, the appeal requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
The judgment and decree of the Trial court is set aside. It is held that the suit is not maintainable as the Civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain and take 48 O.S.No. 6003/2022 cognizance of the suit under Section 9 of the CPC in view of the bar under the Land Acquisition Act.
In view of the discussions and finding on Issue No.1 and 2 the plaintiff is not entitle for any relief as prayed for. Hence, in view of the discussions at Issue No.1 and 2, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative.
50. ISSUE NO.4:- In view of the discussions on Issue No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
Office is hereby directed to draw decree, accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer online, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 20th day of JANUARY 2026.) (PRASEELA KUMARI.G.S.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.49 O.S.No. 6003/2022
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Narayan S Hegde
(b) Defendant's side : nil II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
Plaintiff' side :
(a)
Ex.P.1 Sale deed dt 21.03.2003
Ex.P.2 Assessment extract.
Ex.P.3 Khatha certificate
Ex.P.4 Khatha extract issued by BBMP.
Ex.P.5 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.6 Approved Building plan issued by
Byatarayanapuram CMC.
Ex.P.7 Encumbrance certificate in the form
no.15
Ex.P.8 Notice dt 08.07.2022
Ex.P.9 4 postal acknowledgment together
marked.
(b) Defendants side :
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of Gazette
Notification dt 13.01.1983
Ex.D.2 Copy of official Memorandum
03-10-1992.
50 O.S.No. 6003/2022
Ex.D.3 Certified copy of Award Notice dated 02-05-1987 Ex.D.4 Certified copy of Spl.LAO Award Notice dated 13-01-1983 Ex.D1 to D4 documents got confronted in the evidence of plaintiff.
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
51 O.S.No. 6003/2022