IMPORTANT POINT
Civil courts cannot adjudicate title disputes related to property under acquisition; such matters must be resolved by the Reference Court as per statutory provisions.

ORDER :

1. The Petitioner who is Defendant No. 4 in O.S. No. 1246/2013 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) To set aside the order of the In the Court Of The XLI Addl. City Civil And Session Judge At Bangalore (CCH-42), dated 12.12.2023 wherein the Trial court has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner/Defendant No. 4 under 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 produced at Document No. 1 (Impugned Document).

(b) To allow the application filed by the Petitioner/Defendant No. 4 under 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 produced at Document No. 4 and reject the suit filed by Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff in the interest of justice and equity.

(c) To pass any other order/s as deem fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Respondent No. 1 had filed the suit in O.S. No. 1246/2013 seeking for declaration that the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 19.04.1990, the Power of Attorney dated 19.04.1990 and the Sale Deed dated 29.04.1997 are invalid, non-est, illegal, and not binding on the Plaintiff.

3. In the said suit, Defendant No. 4, having entered appearance, filed his written statement as also an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint, firstly, on the ground that the Sale Deed, which had been executed on 19.04.1990, constituted a constructed notice to all the family members, the suit having been filed in the year 2013, is barred by limitation.

4. The property had been gifted in favour of the Plaintiff post the acquisition notification, therefore, she would not derive any title. The land having been acquired, a separate suit in regard to the said land, which already stood vested in the KIADB, could not be continued.

5. The said application came to be considered and rejected by the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 12.12.2023, holding that it was only when the Plaintiff had challenged the preliminary notification and final notification, she was put to notice about the Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No. 4. There are serious allegations made as regards fraud played by Defendant No. 4, and the creation of documents that require trial, the court also came to a conclusion that though the Reference Court would decide on the matter, the same is limited to only compensation, and in the present matter, there being a challenge to the title of Defendant No. 4 made by the Plaintiff, the same would have to be adjudicated by a separate civil proceeding, and as such, the application came to be rejected. Challenging the same, the Petitioner is before this Court.

6. Sri. K. Chandan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, would submit that:

6.1. Once an acquisition is initiated, the Civil Court will not have any jurisdiction as regards any matter, even if there are any disputes of title between claimants and counterclaimants on the property. The same would have to be decided by the Reference Court, and in this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. Vs. Brijesh Reddy and Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 66 : 2013 INSC 86 more particularly Para 14 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

“No doubt, in the case on hand, the Plaintiffs approached the civil Court with a prayer only for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 BDA their agents, servants and any one 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 the 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