Anand Byrareddy, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court seeking protection against the alleged interference of the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA', for brevity). It transpires that the BDA who was the defendant in the suit, had entered appearance and had filed its written statement and had produced material to indicate that the suit property was the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings under a preliminary notification issued under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA Act' for brevity) on 23-3-1988 and final notification issued under Section 9 of the BDA Act on 9-4-1994 and also produced documents such as the mahazar on handing over of possession, apart from the layout plan, to demonstrate that the property stood vested in the State and consequently, the BDA. In that, possession has been taken of the land by the BDA. Hence, the plaintiff claiming to be in settled possession, was being untenable. On that footing, the suit was dismissed.

2. It is to be noticed at the outset that one significant circumstance th