- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.808 OF 2019 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(A). SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 1(B) SRINIVASA.T, S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 1(C) GOVINDRAJU, S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ALL ARE R/ AT 217, 5TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOPI G.A, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.II IN OS NO.5663/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff questioning the order dated 25.02.2019 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.5663/2017 by LXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-62), thereby, the trial Court not only dismissed I.A.No.2, but also dismissed the suit as not maintainable. Against the dismissal of the suit filed for permanent injunction, the first appeal is filed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 2. The rank of the parties is referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property purchased under the registered sale deed dated 10.12.2012. It is stated that originally the suit property belongs to G.N.Krishna Iyengar and after several sale transactions by various persons, the plaintiff has purchased the suit property and finally the plaintiff has purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 10.12.2012. It is the case made out by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has got katha in his name and constructed a house thereon and got connection of water and electricity facility and thus, the plaintiff is in settled position, but the defendant is interfering with the suit schedule property. Therefore, constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 4. The defendant-BDA has filed the written statement and stated that the suit property is coming into Sy.No.10 of Kathriguppa Village and the said land in Sy.No.10 was acquired through Preliminary Notification dated 09.05.1968 and Final Notification dated 28.10.1971 and award has been passed and possession was taken. The defendants have produced the said Notifications as documents Nos.1 and 2 annexed with the written statement. The suit property is part and parcel of land in Sy.No.10 of Kathriguppa Village. Therefore, it is the written statement of the defendant that the land was acquired for public purpose for formation of residential layout and the defendant has become owner and subsequently, formed layout and allotted sites to various persons. Therefore, taken pleading that the suit is not maintainable. 5. The plaintiff has filed I.A.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for an order of temporary injunction and the trial Court upon considering the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 pleadings made by both the parties came to the conclusion that the suit property and other extent of land was acquired by the defendant-BDA and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Hence, not only dismissing the application, but also dismissed the suit as it is not maintainable. Therefore, the net effect of the order is that, since the land, in which, the sites are in existence was already acquired entirely, thus, the suit is not maintainable. 6. Being aggrieved by it, the plaintiff has filed the appeal by raising various grounds and the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in consonance with the grounds urged has submitted that the trial Court upon considering I.A.No.2 filed for temporary injunction dismissed the suit, which is not correct. Further submitted that, though the BDA has acquired the property, but the plaintiff is in settled possession, therefore, for protecting possession the suit for permanent injunction is filed, but this is not correctly considered by the trial Court. Further submitted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 that the plaintiff wants to lead evidence, both oral and documentary, but without such evidence, dismissal of I.A.No.2 and also dismissal of the suit itself is not a correct approach. Therefore, prays to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that the land in which the suit schedule property is situated was entirely acquired by BDA in the year 1968 itself and award was passed and possession was taken. Thus, the suit in any form is not maintainable and this is correctly appreciated by the trial Court by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, justified the order passed by the trial Court and prays to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 8. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, the points arise for consideration are as follows: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the suit in the present form is maintainable? ii. Whether the order passed by the trial Court requires interference by this Court? 9. It is the case made out by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in settled possession having purchased the same through the registered sale deed dated 10.12.2012. Therefore, the plaintiff is in settled possession, but the defendant is interfering with the possession. Therefore, the suit is filed. 10. It is the case of the defendant that the entire land in Sy.No.10, in which, the suit schedule site is also situated was acquired by the defendant-BDA vide Preliminary Notification dated 09.05.1968 and Final - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 Notification dated 28.10.1971 and the documents are marked and produced as documents No.1 and 2. This factum is not disputed by the plaintiff. It is the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the plaintiff has not received the award amount. Just because, the plaintiff has not received the award amount, the plaintiff has other remedy to seek for receiving award amount. 11. When this being the fact, whether the suit is maintainable is the question to be considered. The trial Court by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the suit in the present form is not maintainable as per Section 9 of CPC cognizance of suit is not to be taken. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. Brijesh - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 Reddy and Another1, wherein at paragraph Nos.18 and 19 held as follows: “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 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 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 1 (2013) 3 SCC 66 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 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.” 13. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff has admitted that the entire land was acquired. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff also submitted that the respondent/defendant has not taken possession and thus, the plaintiff is in settled possession. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in dismissing the suit as not maintainable. Though, the trial Court has passed the order on I.A.No.2 rejecting the application, but has formed opinion that fundamentally the suit is not maintainable and thus, dismissing of the suit as it is not maintainable does not - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 amount to illegality and perversity. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in negative. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, though, the entire land was acquired, but the plaintiff is residing in a portion of the property by constructing house over it. Therefore, requested to give an opportunity to file an application before the defendant BDA for regularization of the suit property. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to make an application for regularization and the defendant is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42160 RFA No. 808 of 2019 ii. The order dated 25.02.2019 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.5663/2017 by LXI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-62), is hereby confirmed. iii. Liberty is reserved to the appellant/plaintiff to file an application to the defendant-BDA for regularization and if such an application is filed, the defendant-BDA shall consider the same in accordance with law. iv. No order as to costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26