- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36402 RFA No. 840 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.840 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. MRS. V. VENKATALAKSHMI W/O LATE H.M. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. MR. ANIL KUMAR .K AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, MR. KIRAN KUMAR .K AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SINCE DEAD IS DELETED 3. MRS. SAVITHA, W/O. MR. Y.G. VASANTH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, #733/K, 6TH ‘A’ CROSS, A SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560064. 4. MR. NAGENDRA KUMAR .K AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE H.M. KRISHNAPPA & SMT. V. VENKATALAKSHMI, APPELLANTS NOS.1 TO 2 & 4 ARE RESIDING AT: #3, NEERUBHAVI MUNIYAPPA COMPOUND, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36402 RFA No. 840 of 2023 OPP. SINDHI COLLEGE, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU-560024. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RISHI SANJAY CHUGH, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. N. SUJATHA W/O SRI N.S. RAJAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT. “SURYA CHANDRA NILAYA”, #1, OPP. SINDHI HIGH SCHOOL, ANJANAPPA LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPLURA, BENGLAURU-560024. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SAMEER SHARMA AND NIRUPAN GOWDA, ADVOCATES) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.01.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2477/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36402 RFA No. 840 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2023 in O.S.No.2477/2018 on the file of the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-No.44), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. It is urged that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants in collusion with the society, attempted to dispossess them. It is submitted that the appellants had relied on the decision in W.A.No.1332/2008, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had already protected the members of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36402 RFA No. 840 of 2023 M/s. Shanthivana Residents Association by directing that they shall not be dispossessed except in due process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment and decree of the trial Court and it is submitted that the trial Court at paragraph No.17 has observed that the apprehension of possible dispossession of the persons in actual possession in the acquired lands is concerned, the Society has undertaken in the Writ Appeal and they should not be dispossessed without due process of law. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs are purchaser under a sale deed executed subsequent to the preliminary notification dated 09.01.1985, issued for acquisition of the very same survey number. It is submitted that any alienation effected after the preliminary notification is void, ab initio and does not create any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiffs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36402 RFA No. 840 of 2023 5. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Krishan Shinghal and Others Vs Union Of India and Others1(Ajay Krishan), that subsequent purchasers have no local standi to challenge the acquisition or to seek injunction. 6. It is further contended that the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and Another2 (Brijesh Reddy) has categorically held that a purchaser after a preliminary notification cannot maintain a suit for injunction against the acquiring body or its beneficiaries. Therefore, the very institution of the present suit by the appellants' was not maintainable in law. 7. Upon considering the rival contentions and looking into the material on record, the point that arises for consideration is: 1 (1996) 10 SCC 721 2 (2013) 3 SCC 66 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36402 RFA No. 840 of 2023 Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court warrants any interference? 8. The acquisition proceedings was relating to Sy.No.17/6 of Kodigehalli village commencing with the preliminary notification dated 09.01.1985 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the plaintiffs' vendor purchased the property on 01.02.1993 and in turn sold to late H.M. Krishnappa on 21.06.2002. Both the transactions are subsequent to the preliminary notification. 9. The law is well settled that any alienation of land after the issuance of preliminary notification is void and does not confer any right, title or interest. In Ajay Krishan’s case stated supra, the Apex Court categorically held that the subsequent purchasers cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and their title being void. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Reddy stated supra, has reiterated that the purchasers after the preliminary - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36402 RFA No. 840 of 2023 notification cannot maintain suits or injunction claims against the acquiring body or its beneficiary. Applying the said principle, the present suit for bare injunction, instituted long after the conclusion of acquisition proceedings, is not maintainable. 10. It is relevant to notice that in W.A.No.1332/2008 dated 22.09.2009, this Court directed the Shanthivana Resident’s Association, including the purchaser of site craved out in Sy.Nos.14, 17/3, 17/4, 17/5 and 17/6 shall not be dispossessed or evicted without due process of law. The said protection continues to operate in favour of the appellants. The trial Court rightly dismissed the suit, holding that the alienation after acquisition was void. This Court has no reason to interfere with the such finding. However, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of earlier protection that was made available in the W.A.No.1332/2008, which enures that they cannot be simply evicted, but only in accordance with law. With the said observation, this Court pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36402 RFA No. 840 of 2023 ORDER The Regular First Appeal is disposed of. It is held that the suit for permanent injunction instituted after the acquisition proceedings is not maintainable in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the cases of Ajay Krishan and Brijesh Reddy stated supra. Nevertheless, the appellants shall continue to be protected under the directions of this Court in W.A.No.1332/2008, which mandates that they shall not be dispossessed except by following due process of law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64