- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2413 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O LATE B.G.SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED 2. SMT. B.S. HEMAVATHI D/O LATE B.G. SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. SRI B.S. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE B.G. SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. SMT. B.S. PADMAVATHI D/O LATE B.G. SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS APPELLANTS ARE R/AT NO.18, H.T.LINE, NO.78/1/18, 3RD CROSS, ADITYA LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560016. APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI R MUNIRAJU S/O LATE ITTAMADU RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 RESIDENT OF RAMA NILAYA NO.1, AREHALLI VILLAGE, ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 061. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NISHANTH A V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. 4. SRI G NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU S/O LATE B.N. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 5. SMT. RAJESHWARAMMA D/O LATE B.N. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 6. SMT. SULOCHANAMMA W/O B.V.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 7. SRI G RAMESH S/O LATE B N GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 7 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI B.V. KRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA REDDY, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.14, II MAIN ROAD, JAYABHEEMA NAGAR, BTM I STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 068. 8. SRI N RADHAKRISHNA S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.419, 7TH MAIN ROAD, HRBR KALYANA NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 043. 9. SRI CHIKKAREVANNA S/O AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1555/N BSK VI STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MILIND DANGE, AGA FOR R-1; SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-3; NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-9 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 23.01.2024) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.09.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.8 IN OS NO.2189/2013 ON THE FILE OF XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY., ALLOWING THE IA NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., REJECTION OF PLAINT. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 02.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.8 filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) read with Section 151 CPC in O.S. No.2189/2013 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.8 and rejected the plaint. 2. The plaintiffs’ suit was for declaration and possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that when a property is under an acquisition proceeding, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and another1 (Brijesh Reddy). The law is well settled that when an acquisition proceeding is initiated, the suit seeking in any form is not maintainable before the Trial Court and is beyond the scope of Section 9 CPC. The Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Reddy has held at paragraph Nos.8, 14, 18 and 19 as under: “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? x x x 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: 1 (2013) 3 SCC 66 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 “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 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 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. x x x 18. It is clear that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose. By necessary implication, the power of the civil court to take cognizance of the case under Section 9 CPC stands excluded and a civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity or legality of the notification under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 Section 4, declaration under Section 6 and subsequent proceedings except by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is thus clear that the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction being granted on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right available for the aggrieved person is to approach the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 136 with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power. 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 BDA, in their written statements, about the initiation of acquisition proceedings ending with the passing of award, handing over 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 court 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 show 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 the view that the High Court is not right in remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal.” 3. In light of the authoritative decision of the Apex Court, the Land Acquisition Act being a complete code in itself and meant for serving public purpose by necessary implication, the power of the civil Court to take cognizance of the case under Section 9 CPC stands excluded, and a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity or legality of the notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6 and subsequent proceedings except by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of one B.G. Siddalingappa, who purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 08.11.1973 from the original owner. It is contended that the deceased B.G. Siddalingappa had constructed sheet-roof house in the suit property and let it out to various tenants prior to 1980. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession through tenants. However, during acquisition proceedings, the officials forcibly demolished the structure, despite the property having been acquired by the plaintiff’s husband long prior to acquisition proceedings. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 5. It is further urged that in light of the amendment introducing Section 38D to the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘the BDA Act, 1976’ for short) on 10.07.2020, liberty be reserved to the appellants to make necessary application before the concerned Authority. 6. In light of the settled proposition of law as declared by the Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Reddy regarding exclusion of civil Court’s jurisdiction in matters arising under the Land Acquisition Act, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. However, this order will not come in the way of the appellants seeking relief under the amended Section 38D of the BDA Act, 1976, in accordance with law and accordingly this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal stands dismissed. ii. The order dated 02.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.8 filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Order VII - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30758 RFA No. 2413 of 2023 Rule 11 (a) read with Section 151 CPC in O.S. No.2189/2013 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8) stands confirmed. iii. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the appellants seeking appropriate relief under the amended Section 38D of the BDA Act, 1976, before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13