- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27522 RFA No. 1603 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1603 OF 2017 (INJ) BETWEEN: BABY JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. DAVID, NO.6, 6TH CROSS, MADHARAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA P.O., BENGALURU - 560 090. &APPELLANT (BY SMT.CHETHANA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.S.MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE) AND: THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING), 14/3, II FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27522 RFA No. 1603 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT Smt.Chethana., counsel on behalf of Sri.B.S.Manjunath., for the appellant and Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. This is an appeal from the Court of XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-41). 3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 1996. He is doing business of Pressed Components and Sheet Metal Works in the name of B.V Industries, a partnership firm concern registered with Small Industries Department. The plaintiff is carrying the work in the schedule premises along with several employees. It is said that the officials of the KIADB visited the property and made spot inspection and caused obstruction and threatened to dispossess him from the schedule premises. Under these circumstances, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27522 RFA No. 1603 of 2017 he was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and filed a suit for permanent injunction. After service of the suit summons, the defendant appeared through its counsel and filed a detailed written statement and denied the plaint averments. They contended that the Government of Karnataka notified the suit land with an intention to acquire for the purpose of formation of Industrial Area. Further, under Section 28(2) of the KIADB Act, Notice was issued to Gangamma - the original owner to file objections to the Notification and after considering the objections, rejected the same under Section 28(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the Government issued Declaration No.CI 153 SPQ 91 dated 30.10.1992 and published it in Karnataka Gazette on 12.11.1992 declaring that entire 05 Acres 30 Guntas of land in Sy.No.6/10 of Peenya Village is required for the purpose of KIADB. By virtue of Section 28(4) and (5) of the Act, the land vested to Government free from all encumbrances. Aggrieved by the said action, Gangamma filed a Writ Petition in No.171/1993 and the same came to be dismissed on 31.05.2002. After dismissal of the Writ Petition, a Notice was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27522 RFA No. 1603 of 2017 issued to Gangamma and was duly served on her. She did not vacate the premises, hence the Special Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the land under Mahazar on 04.09.2002. Gangamma preferred appeal in W.A.No.3657/2002 and the appeal was also dismissed on 05.09.2007. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Trial Court framed issues, the parties led evidence and documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 22.08.2017 dismissed the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers with care. 6. The short point that requires consideration is whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires interference. 7. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of an injunction. As could be seen - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27522 RFA No. 1603 of 2017 from the nature of the lis between the parties, the suit is one for a bare injunction based on possession as of the date of filing of the suit. The right to an injunction is based on a prima facie right. The issue revolves around the factum of possession as of the date of filing of the suit. It would be relevant to see that in a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must prove her/his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as of the date of filing of the suit. Reverting to the facts of the case, plaintiff contends that he is in possession of the suit property and there was an interference by the KIADB. It is significant to note that the KIADB had already acquired the land and possession was taken in 2002. Except stating that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has failed to establish possession over the suit property as of the date of filing of the suit. It is pivotal to note that the plaintiff himself admits that he is not the owner of the property in question. Furthermore, the acquisition proceedings have attained finality and the land vests with the KIADB as of the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court is justified in dismissing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27522 RFA No. 1603 of 2017 the suit. I find not grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. 8. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27.1