IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for bare injunction cannot be maintained when the property was acquired, and subsequent construction by the plaintiff cannot be protected.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging allowing of the application-I.A.No.II filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC on the file of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-26) dated 24.05.2022 and praying this Court to set aside the impugned order.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction is that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property bearing No.7, formed in old Sy.No.263/1, re-survey No.286/2 measuring 21,780 square feet situated at P.N.S. Layout, Banaswadi, Bengaluru with RCC building. It is contended that her deceased husband Venkatapathi had acquired the said property in a partition decree in O.S.No.4577/97 and constructed buildings in the said property by investing huge amount and developed the same by paying betterment charges and not transferred khatha into his name and he died on 06.12.2017 and thereafter, the khatha of the schedule property said to have been transferred in the name of the plaintiff and she is said to be paying tax to the BBMP. It is further urged that the entire area in and around the schedule property came to be developed about decades back during the lifetime of her father-in-law. It is contended that on 18.09.2020, the officials of the defendant came near the schedule property and attempted to demolish the structures in the said property highhandedly and though at that time, the said illegal acts were resisted and stopped by the plaintiff and the neighbours, the defendant has been threatening her of demolishing the existing structures on the schedule property. Hence, she has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the defendant from demolishing the existing structure put up on the schedule property, till the disposal of the suit.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant-BDA appeared and filed the statement of objections to I.A.No.II and also filed an application in I.A.No.III under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC seeking to vacate the interim order of status-quo granted by the Trial Court. It is the contention that defendant is not the owner of the property and property was acquired long back and the entire Sy.No.286/2 has been acquired by the defendant for formation of layout and now the defendant is the owner and plaintiff is attempting to seek adjudication of the acquisition proceedings which is not maintainable and the suit is not maintainable against the acquired property and contend that preliminary notification was issued in 1977 and final notification was also duly notified publicly on 12.06.1980. In pursuance of the said paper publication, the khatedar A. Muniswamy filed his claim petition on 02.07.1981 and subsequently, the award was passed by the LAO on 29.11.1982.

5. It is also contended that already layout has been formed and possession is also taken and property in suit survey number has been vested in the defendant. The defendant also denied the alleged acquisition of the schedule property by the husband of the plaintiff in a partition proceeding in O.S.No.4577/1997 as claimed by her and also denied that her husband constructed school and residential building on the schedule property. It is contended that in view of the acquisition proceedings, it has the authority to collect betterment charges. The BBMP has no jurisdiction to issue khatha to third parties by collecting such charges and transfer the property in favour of the plaintiff and the question of collecting the tax also does not arise and the same will not create any right.

6. The Trial Court, having considered the pleadings of the parties, formulated the points whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience and to whom the irreparable loss or hardship would be caused, in case of grant or refusal of temporary injunction. The Trial Court,