- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2883 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O LATE GUNDU RAO, 2. SMT. K. PADMAJA @ PADVAMATHI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D/O LATE GUNDU RAO, 3. SRI K. RUPESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O LATE GUNDU RAO, 4. SRI K. YASHWANTH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O LATE GUNDO RAO, APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT DOOR NO.22, 1ST FLOOR, BALAJI LAYOUT, RT NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-42. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HIDAYATH ULLA KHAN @ MOHAMMED HIDAYATH ULLA KHAN, S/O AHMED ULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SOMESHWARANAGAR, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 011. 2. SMT. B.K. JAGADAMBA D/O LATE B.K. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.504/1, 6TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, KENGERI UPANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 060. 3. SRI. CHIKKAHANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.65, 4TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAYANDAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 039. 4. SMT. S. SHASHIKALA W/O H. HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.394, 5TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560 086. 5. SMT. S. NAGALAKSHMI, W/O S. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.47, 5TH C MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, RT NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. 6. SHAMEEMUNNISA ANJUM W/O SAIF ULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 1ST CROSS, MARAPPA GARDEN, J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 006. 7. SMT. KAMALA SHANKAR, W/O P.N. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.102, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560 088. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 8. SRI PRAVEEN H. NAGARAJ @ PRAVIN NAGARAJ S/O H.R. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.A-305, MANTRI ELEGANCE, NS PALYA, BENNERGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560076. 9. SMT. S. LALITHA W/O H. SURESH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.17A1, 8TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560060. 10. SRI H.M. SHASHIDHARA S/O H.L. MUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.139/B, 1ST ‘A’ CROSS, IDEAL HOMES, 1ST STAGE, R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098. 11. SRI S. JAYARAMU S/O SIDDIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.125, 3RD CROSS ROAD, 1ST ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, S.T.BED, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034. 12. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 01. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 13. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 20 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 14. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDALAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-20. 15. TALACAUVERY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.3/3, 2ND FLOOR, VAMSH HEIGHT APARTMENT 3RD CROSS, NERU NAGAR, OPP. SHESHADRIPURAM COLLEGE, BENGALURU-560 020 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI VENKATESHAIAH K.V. 16. J.T. SATISH CHANDRA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT “AMMA” NO.88, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE – 86. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV IN O.S.NO.1056/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-41), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the order 04.04.2026 passed in O.S. No.1056/2026 by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-41) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby, I.A.No.4 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC came to be allowed, granting an order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.5 to 9 from claiming the benefit of allotment of developed sites pursuant to the recommendations of the K.N. Keshavanarayana Committee. Aggrieved by the said order, defendant Nos.5 to 8 preferred the present appeal. Brief facts: 2. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit. The suit is instituted by the plaintiffs claiming right in respect of the suit schedule properties, contending that they are the purchasers of site through defendant No.4- society based on agreement of sale and power of attorney executed prior to acquisition. It is their case that, in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 alternative, they are entitled to the allotment of a developed site in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court and the scheme formulated pursuant thereto. It is further contended that the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal while disposing of the earlier writ proceedings, granted liberty to the plaintiffs to work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court and also granted interim protection for a limited period, which was nearing expiry. In that background, the present suit came to be filed seeking declaratory reliefs and consequential injunction. 3. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.4 seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain defendant Nos.5 to 9 from claiming allotment of developed site based on the report dated 02.05.2024 submitted by the K.N. Keshavanarayana Committee, contending that if such allotment are permitted, their rights would be seriously prejudiced. The said application was opposed by the defendants, inter alia, contending that the suit itself is not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 maintainable. The plaintiffs have no independent or subsisting right in the acquired lands and that the claim is an indirect challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the statutory consequences flowing thereon. It was further contended that the plaintiffs are claiming through defendant No.4-society, which have relinquished their rights under a compromise decree, and the plaintiffs are guilty of delay, laches and suppression of material parts. 4. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the Trial Court by the impugned order held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lies in their favour and irreparable injury would be caused, if injunction is not granted. Accordingly, allowed the application and granted temporary injunction, which is assailed in the present appeal. 5. Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Arnav A. Bagalwadi, learned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 counsel for the appellants contends that the Trial Court was not justified in granting the order of temporary injunction. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the plaintiffs on the liberty granted by the Division Bench is wholly misconceived. The said liberty was granted only to the limited extent, of enabling the parties to work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court, particularly on the aspect that the K.N. Keshavanarayana Committee had no jurisdiction to adjudicate issues relating to title or entitlement. 6. Such liberty cannot be construed as a recognition of any right in favour of the plaintiffs, nor does it confer any prima facie entitlement to seek or obtain an order of injunction. It is further contended, that the grant of injunction must independently satisfy the well settled parameters of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and not merely rest upon the existence of such liberty. The Trial Court has erred in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 treating the said liberty as a foundation to extend the interim protection. 7. It is submitted that in the absence of any crystallized or enforceable right, the plaintiffs cannot seek to restrain the appellants from enjoying statutory benefits arising out of the acquisition proceedings. The injunction granted, in effect, restrains the operation of statutory consequences and amounts to indirectly continuing an interim protection, which has already been expired and which is impermissible in law. Therefore, the impugned order granting injunction is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, Sri Rajeshwara P.N., learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No.1 seeks to justify the impugned order and fairly submits that, though the main relief sought may ultimately be subject to adjudication, the alternative relief survives for consideration. It is contended that the Division Bench itself - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 had directed that the allotment of sites in favour of Smt. Narayanmma shall be kept in abeyance for a limited period, thereby, recognizing the necessity of interim protection until the rights of the parties are adjudicated. It is therefore submitted that pending adjudication of rights before the Civil Court, the grant of a temporary injunction is justified to preserve the subject matter and prevent irreparable prejudice to the plaintiffs. 9. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Trial Court was justified in granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and whether the said order warrants any interference in the appeal?” 10. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have approached the Civil Court pursuant to the liberty reserved by the Division Bench, to work out their remedies in accordance with law. The observation made - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 by the Division Bench in W.P. No.28144/2024 dated 12.12.2025 is found at paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 which reads as under: “6. We find substance in the said submissions. Who should be entitled to get the compensation in question should be determined in an appropriate civil remedy to be undertaken by the petitioners and the Committee ought not to have commented on the said issue. There are disputed questions of fact involved in the case. Therefore, the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy to decide the said disputed questions of fact. We, therefore, give liberty to the petitioners to agitate their rights in respect of their lands and the right to get compensation in an appropriate Court by invoking a civil law remedy. The observation made by the Committee while deciding point No.1 shall not be binding on the Court where the proceedings may be undertaken by the petitioners. 7. We also deem it appropriate that for a period of two months from today, the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 recommendation No.4, which reads as under, shall not be given effect to. “(iv) In the light of the finding rejecting the claim put forth by Society and its members, BDA to take up further steps pursuant to the proceedings dated 04.07.2016 in favour of Smt.Narayanamma, in relation to the allotment of developed sites in lieu of acquisition of lands in question.” 8. We also observe that, if the petitioners are of the view that they have been defrauded by the Society or its Management Committee, they are free to take appropriate proceedings on the criminal side and the State should investigate the matter with all promptness and fairness and draw the appropriate proceedings. 9. The direction of the Committee in paragraph No.37 for the execution of 40% developed site in favour of Smt.Narayanamma shall also be kept in abeyance for a period of two months. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 With the aforesaid liberty and observation, the present writ petitions stand disposed of. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged in appropriate civil/criminal proceedings which may be initiated.” (emphasis supplied) 11. The contention of the appellants that such liberty does not create any right in favour of the plaintiffs is well taken, however, it is equally well settled that existence of such liberty enables the plaintiffs to maintain the suit and seek interim protection, subject to satisfying the requirements under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 12. In the present case, the plaintiffs’ claim rides through defendant No.4-society, contending that the sites were formed and conveyed prior to acquisition and that they are entitled either for deletion from acquisition or to the allotment of an alternative developed site. On the other hand, the appellants contend that the society had entered into a compromise and relinquished its rights and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 therefore, the plaintiffs claiming through such society have no subsisting right. These rival claims give rise to serious disputed questions, including: i. Whether the society had an independent and subsisting right at the relevant point of time? ii. Whether any valid conveyance was executed in favour of the plaintiffs prior to the acquisition and iii. The effect of the alleged compromise entered into by the society on the rights now asserted by the plaintiffs. 13. All these issues necessarily require a full- fledged trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at an interlocutory stage. The Trial Court, on appreciation of pleadings and documents, has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse, as the plaintiffs have produced material prima-facie indicating a semblance of right, which requires adjudication. However, having regard to the nature of dispute and rival claims, this Court - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by modifying the nature of interim order. Instead of a blanket injunction restraining the appellants from claiming benefits, it would be appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule properties so as to balance the equities between the parties. Such an order would adequately safeguard the interests of the plaintiffs while, at the same time, not unduly restricting the appellants beyond what is necessary for the preservation of the subject matter pending trial. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal is disposed of with the following modification: i. The impugned order 04.04.2026 passed on I.A. No.4 in O.S. No.1056/2026 by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-41) is modified. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24044 MFA No. 2883 of 2026 ii. The parties are directed to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the suit. iii. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on merits of the case and all contentions are kept open. iv. The Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61