- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16577 RFA No. 898 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 898 OF 2018 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI P LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY @ BABU S/O LATE G.P. PAPAREDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT CHIKKABANASWADI WARD NO.84, BMP K.R. PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BDA COMPLEX, K.P. WEST BENGALURU-560 020. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EAST RANGE, BDA COMPLEX R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16577 RFA No. 898 of 2018 3. SMT. SUSAI MARY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.16, 3RD CROSS MUDDAMMA GARDEN BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU-560 046. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; NOTICE TO R.3 IS NOT NECESSARY, DISPENSED WITH) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.04.2018 PASSED IN O.S. NO.15058/2006 (CCH-22) BY THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY DECREEING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16577 RFA No. 898 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.15058/2006 by the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, the plaintiff therein has preferred this appeal. 2. The original suit has been filed by the appellant against the respondents with the following prayer in respect of the suit schedule properties:- "Wherefore, the plaintiff prays for a judgment and decree against the Defendants for Decree for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them, their agents, servants or anybody acting on their behalf from in any manner interfering or meddling with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule sites and forbidding them from disturbing or dispossessing the plaintiff from possession of the suit schedule sites and also restraining them from taking forcible possession of the suit schedule sites and also grant such other relief of relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this suit in the interest of justice." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16577 RFA No. 898 of 2018 3. The said original suit was dismissed as against respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein by an order dated 20.12.2006, which has not been challenged by the appellant herein. 4. The case of the appellant is that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and without any right, title or interest, the respondents tried to illegally interfere in his peaceful possession of the same, which constrained him to file O.S.No.15058/2006. 5. As already mentioned above, the original suit came to be dismissed as against respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein by an order dated 20.12.2006 and respondent No.1 herein has contested the suit and has contended that the suit schedule properties have been acquired by the State for the purposes of the Bangalore Development Authority by an acquisition notification dated 03.11.1977 (preliminary notification) and 13.11.1980 (final notification) and it is also submitted that possession has been taken in the year 1982 and notification under Section 16(2) of the Bangalore - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16577 RFA No. 898 of 2018 Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 15.03.1983. It is also submitted that thereafter, the acquisition proceedings have been completed in accordance with law and award has also been passed and layout plan has been formed. It is submitted that the appellant, at present, does not have any right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties and trial Court has rightly dismissed the original suit. 6. As the original suit has been dismissed against respondent Nos.2 and 3 way back on 20.12.2006 and the appellant has not sought to challenge the same, notice to respondent No.3 herein is not deemed necessary and the same is dispensed with. 7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:- ”(1) Whether plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? (2) Whether If proves alleged obstructions from defendants? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16577 RFA No. 898 of 2018 (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? (4) What decree or order?" 8. To establish his case, the appellant has examined himself as PW-1 and has got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P25. Respondent No.1 has examined one witness as DW-1 and has got marked documents as Exs.D1 to D5. 9. Though, the appellant has contended before the trial Court, that the suit schedule properties are not subject matter of Exs.D1 and D2 (preliminary and final notifications) issued under the provisions of the Act, the findings of the trial Court is to the contrary and it is recorded that the land concerned are part and parcel of the preliminary and final notifications issued under the provisions of the Act. Further, the appellant in his appeal memorandum has candidly admitted about the same. Further, in course of arguments the counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Bangalore Development Authority submits that the appellant has also filed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16577 RFA No. 898 of 2018 a writ petition in respect of the suit schedule properties, wherein acquisition of the same under the provisions of the Act have been challenged. The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny the same. 10. The trial Court having come to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties are subject matter of acquisition and because of which the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the original suit under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is ousted, has dismissed the original suit. 11. Once the suit schedule property is acquired under the provisions of the Act, under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant cannot maintain a prayer as prayed for in the original suit in respect of the suit schedule properties and I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court. It is needless to state that if the appellant is aggrieved by the acquisition of his land, he is always at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16577 RFA No. 898 of 2018 in accordance with law and the appellant has indeed filed writ petition as aforesaid in this regard. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any reason to interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial Court and the appeal is hereby dismissed. 13. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1