Bangalore District Court
Channappa vs Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... on 2 April, 2026
1
O.S. No.2236/2016
KABC010066922016
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::
Sri. Balachandra N. Bhat,
B.Sc., L.L.B., P.G.D.H.R.L.
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 02nd day April, 2026.
O.S. No.2236/2016
PLAINTIFF :: Sri. Channappa S/o. Late. Papaiah Reddy,
Aged 75 years, R/at: No.876, 12 th Cross,
Lakshmi Layout, Near Government School,
Munnekollala Village, Marathalli Post,
Bengaluru East Taluk - 560 037.
(By Sri. N.R.Jagadeeswara, Advocate)
2
O.S. No.2236/2016
V/s.
DEFENDANTS :: 1. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation, Central Offices, K.H.Road,
Bengaluru - 560 027. Represented by its
Managing Director.
:: 2. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation
represented by its General Manager (Land
Acquisition & Estate) 3rd Floor BMTC
Complex, K.H.Road, Shanti Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
(By Smt. S.Nirmala, Adv. for D-1)
(By Srivaaru Law Firm, Adv. for D-2)
Date of Institution of the Suit :: 17-03-2016
Nature of the Suit :: DECLARATION & INJUNCTION
Date of commencement of :: 13-03-2017
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment :: 02-04-2026
was pronounced
Total Duration :: Year/s Month/s Day/s
10 00 16
(BALACHANDRA N. BHAT)
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
3
O.S. No.2236/2016
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff had initially filed the present suit against the BMTC for declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the action of the defendant demolishing the building is illegal and arbitrary, in the event of this Court holding that the defendant had taken possession without authority to restore the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation amount of deposited before this court by the second defendant on the basis of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA. No.5998/2016 along with interest and for payment of the amount to the plaintiff, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit schedule property and from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, costs and such other relief. 4
O.S. No.2236/2016 The property is as described herein below to be referred to henceforth as the suit schedule property;
SCHEDULE House bearing No.191 formed in Sy.
Nos.98, 99, 100 and 101 situated at Munnekollala new extension, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring East to West - 40 ft. and North to South - 50 ft. bounded on East by - Site No.192, West by -
Road, North by - Site No.196 and South by - Road.
2. The crux of the case of the plaintiff could be summarised as follows;
The land in Sy. Nos.98, 99, 100 and 101 of Munekolalu Village, Varathur Hobli, Bengaluru was a Government Gomal land. The Government of Karnataka with the object of providing free house sites to the economically weaker section of the society without shelter. In this regard the State Government had passed an order to that effect. The revenue authorities had formed residential sites over the revenue lands in Sy. 5
O.S. No.2236/2016 Nos.98, 99, 100 and 101. After the formation of pakka sites they were allotted to the persons from economically weaker section of the society without shelter. The site bearing No.191 situated in Munnekolalu Village, Bengaluru East Taluk in Sy. Nos.98, 99, 100 and 101. this is the suit schedule property.
3. The Tahsildar is said to have issued hakku pathra on 05.01.1972 in respect to the suit schedule property. The original hakku pathra is said to have been produced in O.S. No.1198/1982 but had failed to seek return of the same. Hence a certified copy of the document is said to be produced. The suit schedule property is said to be situated within Ramagondanahalli gram panchayath. The suit schedule property was assessed khata was opened in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property at the gram panchayath. The plaintiff claims to have regularly paid 6 O.S. No.2236/2016 taxes to the village panchayath. During 1981 the plaintiff claims to have applied before the Ramagondanahalli gram panchayath for obtaining licence to put up residential house and had also submitted plan for approval as well. The suit schedule property then came within the jurisdiction of BBMP on the formation of the BBMP. A khata was opened in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property at the BBMP. The plaintiff claims to have paid taxes thereafter to the BBMP. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit schedule since the date of allotment and had been enjoying the same without any interruption.
4. During 1982 one Sri. M.T.Krishna Reddy is alleged to have made attempts to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was then compelled to institute a suit in O.S. No.1198/1982. Similarly, adjacent 7 O.S. No.2236/2016 owners Sri. Nanjunda Reddy and Madan Kumar are said to have also filed suits in O.S. No.1197/1982 and 2003/1982 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The suits came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.1988. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree appeals were preferred in RFA. No.623 to 625/1989 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The appeals were allowed vide judgment and decree of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 19.11.1998. The plaintiffs in all the cases were declared to be owners in possession of the respective properties. This judgment and decree of the Hon'ble High Court is said to have attained finality.
5. Smt. Channamma, Sri. Vajrappa and Sri. Muniswamy are said to have filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division in R.A. Nos.42/1986-87 and 47/1986-87. The Assistant 8 O.S. No.2236/2016 Commissioner had dismissed the appeals vide order dated 25.09.1987 and 30.06.1988 upholding the allotment of sites in favour of the plaintiff and others. The legal representatives of Sri. M.T.Krishna Reddy had filed a Misc. Appeal No.8/1988-89 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Even this appeal came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 15.06.1989.
6. The officials with henchmen of the defendant are alleged to have trespassed over the suit schedule property on 17.02.2016 and had demolished a portion of the building and looted all the articles in the premises. The illegal acts of the defendant could somehow be temporarily stopped with the aid of neighbours and public. The officials while leaving the spot are said to have threatened to come with more men and materials and demolish the entire house. However, again the 9 O.S. No.2236/2016 officials and men of the defendant had come on 06.03.2016 trespassed over the suit schedule property and pulled down the remaining portion of the house property. 1.10 acres of land in Sy. No.98 of Munnekolalu Village was acquired by the B.D.A. for forming ring road and after the formation of the ring road the surplus land is said to have been allotted to the BMTC. At the time of notification sites were already formed by the Government and were in the possession of the allottees. The allottees were neither given the notice nor any award being passed in their favour giving them compensation amount. Neither the preliminary nor the final notification is found to contain the names of the allottees of the sites formed over this land. According to the letter of allotment B.D.A. is said to have allotted 3/4 acre or 30 guntas of land in favour of the defendant. The sale deed would show that the extent of the allotted land to the defendant was 2824.86 sq. mtrs. There was no notification under 10 O.S. No.2236/2016 Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to show that the possession of the land was taken by the defendant.
7. After the institution of the suit the second defendant is said to have acquired the suit schedule property for the purpose of Metro Rail Project and the amount has been paid to the first defendant. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA. No.5988/2016 wherein the second defendant is said to have given an undertaking. On the basis of the memo filed by this defendant before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka this defendant was permitted to proceed with the project work on depositing the compensation amount calculated in respect of the suit schedule property.
8. The crux of the defence put forth by the first defendant in its written statement filed on 02.04.2016 could be summarised as follows;
11
O.S. No.2236/2016 According to this defendant there was a vacant land belonging to the Bengaluru Development Authority at the outer ring road of Marthahalli. This defendant asserts that there was no bus stand at that place and in the interest of the public this defendant intended to construct a bus stand for the benefit of the public and in this regard claims to have made application to the B.D.A. to allot the vacant land measuring 3/4 guntas for the purpose of putting up a bus stand. The B.D.A. is said to have allotted the vacant land to an extent of 75 + 50/2 x 620 ft. in all 0.89 acres to this defendant. The price of the land was fixed at Rs.2,26,85,922-00. The B.D.A. is said to have issued bulk allottment letter on 23.05.2007.
9. The B.D.A. is said to have conducted actual survey on 23.07.2007 through which the extent of the land established was arrived at 2824.86 sq. mtrs or 0.70 acre. The B.D.A. is said to have prepared sketch in this regard. The B.D.A. is said to have also executed a sale 12 O.S. No.2236/2016 deed on 22.01.2008 which revealed the consideration to be Rs.1,78,46,388-00. The B.D.A. is said to have delivered the possession of the land allotted to this defendant through a certificate issued on 22.01.2008. This defendant on the basis of the sale deed claims to have got khata changed to it name on 18.12.2008. 2385 is the khata number assigned to the property purchased by this defendant. This defendant claims to have been paying tax to the local authority. This defendant further states that on 12.09.2009 tender was called from the prospective bidders for construction of a bus stop. The plaintiff is said to have threatened to trespass over the property sold to this defendant and put up construction that came to the knowledge of this defendant on 06.01.2016. This defendant claims to have even lodged information with the police. The letter addressed to the Superintendent of BMTF was sent on 08.01.2016. The defendant claims to have sought information from the 13 O.S. No.2236/2016 B.D.A. regarding details of acquisition made in Sy. No.98 through a letter dated 12.01.2016 and to furnish the details to the BMTF. The defendant claims to have addressed a letter to the BMTF to take steps to remove the illegal construction initiated by the plaintiff. The defendant claims to have addressed a letter on 16.02.2016 to the Commissioner of the BMTF to take steps for the removal of the unauthorised construction. The defendant also claims to have addressed a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 17.02.2016 in respect of unauthorised construction. The defendant claims to have addressed a letter on 14.03.2016 seeking details of acquisition. According to this defendant there was no structure whatsoever as on the date of the filing of the suit as stated by the plaintiff.
10. The preliminary notification was made on 04.06.1997 by the Bengaluru Development Authority in 14 O.S. No.2236/2016 respect of the acquisition of the land in Sy. No.98. The final notification was made on 12.02.1998. The land to an extent of 6.24 acres in Sy. No.98 was acquired under these notifications. After the acquisition of the lands in Sy. Nos.97 and 98 a survey is said to have been conducted which revealed that 75+50/2 x 620, 35.58 was a vacant land belonging to the B.D.A. The encumbrance certificate for the period between 01.04.1988 and 15.03.2016 would show the sale transaction between the B.D.A. and the defendant on 22.08.2008. Accordingly, the defendant has sought for an order to dismiss the suit with costs.
11. The second defendant was subsequently added as a party which in its written statement has put forth the following defence:
The second defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with the object of 15 O.S. No.2236/2016 providing quick, cheap, eco-friendly convenient mode of transport to the public in the Metropolitan City of Bengaluru. The center and the state hold 50% share each in the said company. According to the terms of memorandum of understanding entered into between the Government of India, The Government of Karnataka and the BMRCL lands required for the implementation of metro rail projects cleared by the Central Government will be provided by the State Government after acquiring them under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Under the preliminary notification CI 140 SPQ 2018 dated 28.08.2018 issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act an extent of 2483.27 sq. mtrs of land in Sy. No.98 of Munnekolalu, Bengaluru along with other properties was proposed for acquisition for the implementation of Bengaluru Metro Rail Project phase II. The khata of the above land is said to be in the name of BMTC for the reason that after the 16 O.S. No.2236/2016 formation of outer ring road by the B.D.A. an extent of 2824.86 sq. mtrs. of unutilized portion of the acquired land in Sy. No.98 of Munnekolalu bounded by East:
Service Road, West: RCC Retraining Wall, North: Temple and South: Varathur Road was transferred in favour of the BMTC by the B.D.A. through a registered sale deed dated 22.01.2008 for consideration of Rs.1,78,46,388-00 and B.D.A. issued possession certificate in favour of BMTC.
12. In the notifications issued on 28.08.2018 and the final notification it is said there was a reference to the existence of a building used as Indira canteen. After the revised JMC done as per the direction of the High Power Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of GoK, BMTC is said to have handed over possession of land measuring 2406.48 sq. mtrs with the following boundaries; East: Road, West: Road (ORR Road) North: 17
O.S. No.2236/2016 remaining land of the BMTC and South: remaining land of BMTC to BMRCL. This defendant claims to have remitted Rs.12,82,65,384-00 on 19.06.2019. In addition to 2406.48 sq. mtrs acquired by this defendant it claims to have further acquired 76.79 sq. mtrs paying Rs.40,92,907-00 to BMTC, Bengaluru on 19.08.2022. The document of possession is said to have been issued subject to the outcome in the suit in O.S. No.1704/2016 filed by Sri. Nanjunda Reddy. This defendant claims that it is not aware of any land much less land bearing house No.191 being granted to the plaintiff. This defendant contends that the pleadings made in the plaint are not within its knowledge. On 27.04.2016 an order was passed by this Court restraining BMTC from changing the nature of the suit schedule property. This order was challenged in M.F.A. No.5998/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. While disposing off the M.F.A. the Hon'ble High Court to maintain status quo in so far 18 O.S. No.2236/2016 as the suit schedule property in this case is concerned till the disposal of the suit. On the basis of the memo filed by this defendant before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka this defendant was permitted to proceed with the project work on depositing the compensation amount calculated in respect of the suit schedule property. The order is said to have been passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 16.12.2022. This defendant claims to have deposited an amount of Rs.99,03,140-00 in this case vide banker's cheque bearing No.002113 dated 17.12.2022 issued by the Bank of India Cantonment branch, Bengaluru. In the event of the plaintiff succeeding in this suit he would be entitled to the amount in deposit. The defendant claims that it has entered into contract for construction of 7 elevated Metro stations at Kodibisanahalli, Marathhalli, ISRO, Doddanekundi, DRDO's Sports Complex, Saraswathinagar and K.R.Puram including 1,097 km. 19
O.S. No.2236/2016 length link line to Byappanahalli Depot, 0.30 km. pocket track, road widening utility diversion and allied works are allotted to M/s. Shankaranarayana Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru by the BMRCL under agreement dated 26.08.2021. The value of the contract work is estimated to be Rs.623,55,21,218-00 that is to be completed within 30 months from 28.06.2021. The suit for permanent injunction to restrain development projects is barred under Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Amendment Act 2018. Accordingly, the defendant has sought for an order to dismiss the suit.
13. Heard arguments of both counsels and perused records.
14. On the basis of the pleadings and materials placed by the parties to the present suit issues and additional issue on 23.01.2017 and 09.09.2025. 20
O.S. No.2236/2016 ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves interference of the defendant as alleged Para-7 of the plaint?
3. Whether the defendant Corporation proves that it has removed unauthorized sheds constructed by the plaintiff by trespassing into its property?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for alternative relief of possession of the schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
6. What order or decree ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the compensation amount deposited by defendant No.2 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA. No.5988/2016?
21
O.S. No.2236/2016
15. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and relied upon 34 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.34.
16. Per contra, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 got examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and have relied upon 52 documents marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.52.
17. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
ISSUE No.1 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.2 :: Does not arise for
consideration
ISSUE No.3 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.4 :: Does not arise for
consideration
ISSUE No.5 :: Partly in the Affirmative
ADDL. ISSUE :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.6 :: As per final order for the
following;
22
O.S. No.2236/2016
REASONS
18. ISSUE NOS.1 TO 5 AND ADDL. ISSUE :: All these issues are taken up collectively for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and also for convenience of the Court.
Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the index of lands pertaining to the land in Sy. Nos.98, 99 and 101 of Munekolalu Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru. These lands were set apart as gomal vide orders dated 12.03.1938. This document was issued on 02.12.1988 by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the hakku pathra issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk. The hakku pathra was granted in the name of Sri. Channappa S/o. Seragu Papaiah of Munnekolalu Village. Site measuring 50 ft. x 40 ft. bearing No.191 with the following boundaries was allotted to the plaintiff. The document was produced before the City Civil Court during 1982. Ex.P.4 is the 23 O.S. No.2236/2016 certified copy of the assessment register extract issued by the Ramagondanahalli Gram Panchayath for the year 1979-80 in the name of the plaintiff in respect of site No.191. The site was vacant during 1979-80. Ex.P.5 is a true copy of the demand register extract issued by the Ramagondanahalli Gram Panchayath for the year 1988-
89. In this document there is a tax found to be levied on the house in site No.191 in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P.6 is the RTC extract in respect of the land in Sy. No.98 for the year 2015-16 (computerised RTC). The entire land is shown to be a gomal Government land and free sites are formed in this land. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are the RTC extracts pertaining to the land in Sy. Nos.99 and
100. Ex.P.8 is found to be in the name of Sri. Papareddy in respect of 24 guntas. Ex.P.9 is the RTC extract pertaining to the land in Sy. No.101 that is in the names of Sri. Papareddy, Sri. N.G.Chandrareddy, Sri. Gurumurthy Reddy. Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.16 are the tax paid 24 O.S. No.2236/2016 receipts in respect of the property No.191, khata No.187 from 1981 to 1991 all in the name of Sri. Channappa the plaintiff. Ex.P.17 is the certified copy of the tax paid receipt dated 11.07.1981 wherein tax is found to have been levied for water and light. Ex.P.18 is the certified copy of the approved plan for construction of building in site No.191. The plinth area is shown to be 876 sq. ft. Ex.P.19 is the certified copy of the licence issued by the Ramagondanahalli Gram Panchayath on 20.09.1981. Ex.P.20 is the true copy of the demand register extract pertaining to property No.191 measuring 40 x 50 ft. for the year 2014-15 dated 19.02.2015. The property is shown to be situated in Ashwathanagar ward. This document was issued by the BBMP. Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.27 are tax paid receipts for the year 2008-09 to 2015-16 issued by the BBMP. Ex.P.28 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No.1198/1982 filed by the plaintiff against Sri. M.T.Krishna Reddy. Ex.P.29 is the certified copy of 25 O.S. No.2236/2016 the common judgment passed in O.S. No.1198/1982, 1197/1982 and 2003/1982 on 07.12.1988. All the suits came to be dismissed. Ex.P.30 is the certified copy of the decree in O.S. No.1197/1982. Ex.P.31 is the certified copy of the judgment and decree in RFA. No.623 to 625 of 1989 passed on 19.11.1998 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The present plaintiff was the appellant in RFA. No.624/1989. The appeals were allowed.
19. Ex.P.32 is the certified copy of the order passed in R.A. No.42/1986-87 dated 25.09.1987 wherein the present plaintiff was the third respondent. Smt. Gangamma, Sri. Vajrappa and Sri. Muniswamy were the appellants. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was the granting authority to cancel the grant in case of violation of any of the 10 conditions subject to which the land was granted by the authority and on the ground of limitation. Ex.P.33 is the certified copy of the order 26 O.S. No.2236/2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.47/1986-87 on 30.06.1988. The appellants in this case had further challenged the order passed which is at Ex.P.33 before the Deputy Commissioner. In these appeals the present plaintiff was the third respondent. Even this Miscellaneous Appeal No.8/1988-89 came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.07.1989.
20. On the contrary, the defendants have produced 52 documents marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.52. Ex.D.1 is the authorisation letter dated 28.11.2017 issued by the Estate Officer of the BMTC. Ex.D.2 is the allotment letter dated 23.05.2007 prepared on 10.04.2007. Land measuring 38750 sq. ft was allotted to the first defendant by the B.D.A. The basis for issuing this allotment letter is the resolution passed on 04.07.2006 in subject No.105/2006. The extent of the land allotted under this letter would be about 35.58 27 O.S. No.2236/2016 guntas. The allotment letter is not accompanied by the resolution said to have been passed on 04.07.2006 and what were the documents that were considered at the time of passing the resolution. There is no sketch and mahazar prepared at the spot to show that there was in fact inspection of the spot and if so who was the officer who had visited the spot is also not clear from the materials placed by the defendant. When there were litigations in respect of this land since 1982 what prevented the B.D.A. to consider this aspect while proceeding to allot the land to the first defendant. The allotment apparently was an evidence of subsequent event in point of time when the hakku pathra was allotted to the plaintiff during 1972. It is not clear from the materials placed by the defendants to show that in fact these materials were considered at all. Moreover the defendants are not individuals but statutory bodies where every transaction would be based on documents. Ex.D.3 28 O.S. No.2236/2016 is the true copy of the actual measurement of the site and which would reveal that a sketch was separately appended to this document which is not produced. The actual measurement shown is 2824.86 sq. mtrs. Now going by Ex.D.2 the land allotted was 3601.3 sq. mtrs. However, the actual measurement of the site found would be 27.92 guntas. This piece of land alleged to have been allotted is shown to be situated within Sy. No.98. However, the total extent of the land in Sy. No.98 is 6.24 acres. Therefore, it is not clear as to in which portion of this vast land this alleged allotted land is located. Ex.D.4 is the original sale deed executed by the B.D.A. in favour of the first defendant on 22.01.2008. The land sold was 2824.86 sq. mtrs in Sy. No.98. Ex.D.5 is the possession certificate issued by the B.D.A. in favour of the first defendant on 22.01.2008 for having delivering possession. It is a standard form in which the particulars are found typed. Ex.D.6 is the uttara pathra 29 O.S. No.2236/2016 issued by the BBMP through which a khata in the name of the first defendant was made at the BBMP. However, after obtaining the possession certificate an application for opening a khata in the name of the first defendant was made on 07.02.2008. Ex.D.7 is the certificate issued by the BBMP on 18.12.2008. Ex.D.8 is the copy of the demand register extract for the year 2007-08. Ex.D.9 is the tax paid receipt for the year 2015-16. It is not clear as to whether the first defendant had paid taxes from 2008 to 2015. Ex.D.10 is the copy of the tender notification dated 12.09.2009. Ex.D.11 is the work order dated 12.01.2010 issued to Mr. Anjaneya PWD Contractor which is accompanied by copy of an agreement. Ex.D.12 to Ex.D.15 are photographs and Ex.D.16 is the CD containing negatives of the photographs at Ex.D.12 to Ex.D.15. Ex.D.17 would demonstrate the amount towards execution of the work accompanied by contract certificate which does not bear 30 O.S. No.2236/2016 the date. Ex.D.18 is the information to the HAL police station dated 04.08.2015. Ex.D.19 is a copy of the endorsement for having sought the assistance of the police in clearing the structures found at the spot. Now according to Ex.D.18 the first defendant had found on 04.08.2015 that some persons had put up sheds, structures and had parked vehicles on the land alleged to have been purchased by this defendant. When the first defendant had found that there were structures or vehicles parked notices ought to have been issued to the persons to whom they were concerned and not seek the assistance of the police. The matter was purely civil and hence the approach made by the first defendant to use iron hands of the police is not a demonstration of a welfare state but tyranny. However, Ex.D.19 is copy of the letter dated 07.01.2016 seeking assistance of the police when there was nothing on record with the first defendant to show as to what were the structures if so 31 O.S. No.2236/2016 the basis on which such constructions were put up ought to have been documented and records built up. Instead of all this the first defendant appears to have immediately sought for assistance of the police. Ex.D.20 is the copy of the letter dated 08.01.2016 addressed to the BBMP. On the same day a letter at Ex.D.21 was also sent to the Superintendent of Police for necessary action. Ex.D.22 is the copy of the letter addressed to the B.D.A. on 12.01.2016. In turn the B.D.A. had written a letter at Ex.D.23 to the DCP, BMTF and a copy to the first defendant on 21.01.2016. Ex.D.24 and Ex.D.25 are the copies of the letters sent to the S.P. and the B.D.A. on 16.02.2016 and 14.03.2016. Report of Security Officer, Sri. Harish at Ex.D.26 would show that the BMTF had cleared all the structures on 17.02.2016 and there were no structures as on 01.03.2016. It is also found mentioned in this report that this security official would report the developments at the spot on a day to day 32 O.S. No.2236/2016 basis. If this is to be believed it is not clear as to why Sri. Harish had to wait until there were structures that could be found in the photographs were completed. There are no documents to show or photographs taken on a day to day basis as to the status of the land since the same being purchased by the first defendant. However, one thing is clear from the very documents of the first defendant that there were structures as on 17.02.2016 that were cleared. This would coincide with the cause of action for the present suit pleaded in the plaint at para No.7. Ex.D.27 to Ex.D.42 are the photographs showing demolition of the structures at the spot in the presence of police officers. Ex.D.43 is the CD. Ex.D.44 and Ex.D.45 are the encumbrance certificate for the period between 01.04.1988 and 31.03.2004 and 01.04.2004 and 26.10.2017. Ex.D.46 is the certified copy of the notification under Section 17(1) and (3) of the B.D.A. Act dated 04.06.1997. Ex.D.47 is the certified copy of the 33 O.S. No.2236/2016 final notification dated 12.02.1998. The extent required in Sy. No.98 of Munekolalu Village was 1.10 acres. However, the total extent of the land available in Sy. No.98 was 6.24 acres that was set apart as gomal. In ignorance of the developments prior to 04.06.1997 the notification came to be issued. Whereas, the revenue records would show that during 1938 the land measuring 6.24 acres was set apart as gomala and the same was utilized by the Government for forming sites to be distributed to economically weaker section of the society. Hence, on the basis of estoppel the Government ignoring these developments could not have issued notification. Even if the notification is taken to be legal and valid the extent proposed to be acquired in Sy. No.98 was only 1.10 acres. The remaining extent was 5.14 acres. Ex.D.48 is the photocopy of the sketch which is not clear in so far as the shades made in the document and the index provided thereunder. Ex.D.49 is the agreement 34 O.S. No.2236/2016 No.23/2009-10 dated 12.01.2010 executed by Sri. Anjaneya. Ex.D.50 is the office order authorising D.W.2 to depose before the Court and do all the incidental acts necessary for defending the present suit. Ex.D.51 is the copy of the letter for conveying the property to the extent of 2406.48 sq. mtrs. Ex.D.52 is the copy of the notification for acquisition of the land under the provisions of KIADB. The extent of the land sought to be acquired or transferred to the second defendant in Sy. No.98 of Munekolalu was 2483.27 sq. mtrs. The extent of the land remaining with the first defendant was 341.59 sq. mtrs. The name of the khatedar is shown to be the first defendant. According to the second defendant initially 2406.48 sq. mtrs was acquired by it from the first defendant thereafter, an additional extent of 76.79 sq. mtrs was acquired from the first defendant. However, the notification under the provisions of the KIADB is for the entire extent and there are no materials to show that on 35 O.S. No.2236/2016 two occasions bits of land were being acquired. D.W.2 is found to have asserted that no extent of the land belonging to the plaintiff is available at the spot and the entire extent was being acquired and used for metro rail project.
21. P.W.1 was asked regarding lay out plan for having formed sites in Sy. No.98 of Munekolalu Village. However, it was the Government that had proposed to form sites and the formation of sites was not by a private person. Moreover, the defendants are statutory bodies and hence, are estopped from questioning the discretion of the Government and thereafter, Tahsildar proceeding to issue hakku pathra in favour of the plaintiff. Apart from this nothing much appears to have been elicited through this witness so as to disbelieve his version.
22. The very admissions of D.W.1 reproduced herein below are sufficient to demonstrate as to the basis 36 O.S. No.2236/2016 on which the defence was prepared for the first defendant or the contents of the affidavit sworn to by the witness. According to D.W.1 it was on the instructions of the Chief Traffic Manager the affidavit was prepared. The witness admits that the land in Sy. No.98 is a Gomal and its extent 6.24 acres. This witness is found to have expressed his ignorance in respect of the formation of sites to be distributed to the weaker section of the society without shelter. The witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants were not successful in disproving the case of the plaintiff and they were not aware of the facts involved in the case.
23. The other aspect of the matter that is glaring on the materials placed in this case is that Munekolalu has been mentioned to be situated in Bengaluru South Taluk. However, the plaintiff has consistently asserted that it comes within Bengaluru East. The map would also 37 O.S. No.2236/2016 reveal that Munekolalu Village is situated within Bengaluru East Taluk. Even Ex.D.52 produced by the second defendant would show that Munekolalu Village is situated within Bengaluru East Taluk. Therefore, on this pretext the defendants cannot also contend that the case of the plaintiff should fail. Now in so far as the documents produced by the plaintiff is concerned merely on account of wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities like Tahsildar and other revenue authorities the grant and the subsequent acts cannot be disbelieved. The defendants are in fact estopped from contending contrary to the materials placed on record.
24. Now from the discussion made above it is clear that only a portion of the land in Sy. No.98 was acquired by the B.D.A. which had conveyed it to the first defendant. In turn a portion of the land so acquired by the first defendant it had conveyed to the second 38 O.S. No.2236/2016 defendant. There are no materials to show the exact location of the land granted to the plaintiff and the land acquired by the B.D.A. However, it would suffice if the plaintiff is directed to swear to an affidavit regarding the fact that he has no other properties or house being occupied by him in any portion of the land in Sy. No.98 and that the site bearing No.191 is acquired. This aspect is found to have been even asserted during the cross examination by D.W.2. D.W.2 has clearly admitted that the entire suit schedule property was acquired by it and no property of plaintiff remained at the spot. Accordingly, subject to the filing of the affidavit the plaintiff is held entitled to the compensation amount deposited by the second defendant. The possession of the suit schedule property was handed over to the plaintiff at the time of allotment of site No.191. However, during the pendency of the suit the possession was taken over by the second defendant based on the notification and D.W.2 admits 39 O.S. No.2236/2016 that the possession of the entire suit schedule property was taken over for public purpose. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to answer the aforesaid issues and additional issue No.1 in the Affirmative, issue No.2 and 4 in the Does not arise for consideration, issue Nos.3 in the Negative, issue No.5 Partly in the Affirmative and additional issue in the Affirmative.
25. ISSUE NO.6 :: In view of findings given on Issues No.1 to 5 and additional issue, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part. The plaintiff is declared to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property before its acquisition by the second defendant.
In view of the fact that the suit schedule property being acquired for public purpose and compensation being already deposited by the second defendant the plaintiff although is found 40 O.S. No.2236/2016 to be dispossessed is held not entitled to possession of the suit schedule property.
The plaintiff is however held entitled to the compensation amount in deposit by virtue of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA. No.5998/2016.
The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as the possession is taken over by the second defendant for public purpose.
The plaintiff is held entitled to interest at the rate of Rs.6% p.a from the date of the suit till realisation.
The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the proceeding as well.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 02 nd day of April, 2026).
(BALACHANDRA N. BHAT) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
41O.S. No.2236/2016 ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :
(A) PLAINTIFF SIDE ::
P.W.1 :: Channappa (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE :: D.W.1 :: M.Ravishankar D.W.2 :: Poornima P.V.
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFF SIDE ::
Ex.P.1 :: Certified copy of record of rights Ex.P.2 :: Certified copy of index of lands Ex.P.3 :: Certified copy of hakku patra Ex.P.4 & :: Two certified copies of assessment extracts Ex.P.5 Ex.P.6 to :: 4 RTC extracts Ex.P.9 Ex.P.10 to :: 7 tax paid receipts Ex.P.16 Ex.P.17 :: Certified copy of tax paid receipt Ex.P.18 :: Certified copy of plan Ex.P.19 :: Certified copy of license Ex.P.20 :: Assessment extract issued by B.B.M.P. 42 O.S. No.2236/2016 Ex.P.21 to :: 7 tax paid receipts Ex.P.27 Ex.P.28 :: Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.1198/1982 Ex.P.29 :: Certified copy of common judgment in O.S. No.1197/1982 and 1198/1982 Ex.P.30 :: Certified copy of decree in O.S. No.1197/1982 Ex.P.31 :: Certified copy of judgment in RFA.
No.623/1989 C/w. RFA. No.624 & 625/1989 Ex.P.32 :: Certified copy of order dated 25.09.1987 passed by Asst. Commissioner Ex.P.33 :: Certified copy of order dated 30.06.1988 passed by Asst. Commissioner Ex.P.34 :: Certified copy of order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
Ex.D.1 :: Authorization letter Ex.D.2 :: Allotment letter issued by B.D.A. Ex.D.3 :: Copy of dimension Ex.D.4 :: Original sale deed dated 22.01.2008 Ex.D.5 :: Possession certificate Ex.D.6 :: Khata endorsement Ex.D.7 :: Certificate 43 O.S. No.2236/2016 Ex.D.8 :: Copy of property register Ex.D.9 :: Tax paid receipt Ex.D.10 :: Tender notification No.5/2009-10 dated 12.09.2009 Ex.D.11 :: Work order dated 12.01.2010 Ex.D.12 to :: 4 photographs with CD Ex.D.16 Ex.D.17 :: Account extract for having made payment to the contract Ex.D.18 & :: Copy of complaints filed with HAL Police on Ex.D.19 04.08.2015 and 07.01.2016 Ex.D.20 :: Representation submitted to B.B.M.P. Ex.D.21 :: Representation submitted to S.P., BMTF Ex.D.22 :: Representation submitted to B.D.A. Ex.D.23 :: Copy of letter sent by B.D.A. to police Ex.D.24 :: Letter addressed to S.P., BMTF Ex.D.25 :: Copy of letter addressed to B.D.A. Ex.D.26 :: Letter written by security guard to divisional Controller, BMTC Ex.D.27 to :: 16 photographs with CD Ex.D.43 Ex.D.44 & :: Encumbrance Certificates from 01.04.1988 Ex.D.45 to 31.03.2004, 01.04.2004 to 26.10.2017 44 O.S. No.2236/2016 Ex.D.46 :: Certified copy of notification under Section 17(1) and (3) of B.D.A. Act Ex.D.47 :: Certified copy of final notification dated 12.02.1998 Ex.D.48 :: Certified copy of the sketch Ex.D.49 :: Agreement between BMTC and Contractor dated 12.01.2010 Ex.D.50 :: True copy of authorization letter Ex.D.51 :: True copy of document handing over the possession Ex.D.52 :: True copy of notification for acquisition (BALACHANDRA N. BHAT) XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.