Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

NC: 2025:KHC:41242

RFA No. 671 of 2017

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.671 OF 2017 (INJ)

BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANNAMMA
W/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY L.R’s.
1. SRI GOPALA
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
2. SRI T.C. RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
3. SRI T.C. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
4. SMT. SHREEMANJU
W/O T.C. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
5. SMT. PREMA
D/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ALL RESIDING AT
THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST,
MARATHAHALLI-VARTHUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 066.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SUBASH REDDY V., ADVOCATE)

AND:
THE AIRCRAFTS EMPLOYEES
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.15
1ST CROSS, C.K.C. GARDEN,
OPPOSITE BANGALORE INSTITUTE
OF ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL,
K.H. ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD),
BANGALORE-560 027.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI SUBASH REDDY V.
For the Respondents: SRI NISHANTH A.V.

Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over disputes involving land already acquired and possessed under the Land Acquisition Act; such issues must follow statutory remedies.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 6(1), and 11A - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 9 - Suit for permanent injunction dismissed - Plaintiffs failed to prove possession of land or challenge acquisition notifications - Court held Civil Court does not have jurisdiction after lawful acquisition and possession have been established - Suit for injunction not maintainable, as remedy lies under relevant statutory provisions. (Paras 10, 12)

(B) Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Civil Court's jurisdiction is excluded once land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act - Ownership disputes related to acquired land must be addressed via statutory remedies, not through Civil Court. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of land despite the defendant having acquired land through statutory processes - The trial court found the plaintiffs failed to establish their possession of the land, leading to the suit’s dismissal.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's decree was correct as the plaintiffs did not legally possess the land in question, having not successfully challenged the acquisition. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court does not exist in cases of handed-over possession following an acquisition.

Issues: The main issue framed was whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for permanent injunction regarding land that had been legally acquired and possessed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that once land has been acquired by the State, any challenges must be resolved in accordance with the statutory framework of the Land Acquisition Act, not through mere injunction suits in Civil Court.

Result: Appeal dismissed; the trial court's judgment and decree are upheld.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4597/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, (CCH 14), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Regular First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2017 in O.S. No. 4597/2010 on the file of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-14) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction.

Brief facts:

2. Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession of Survey No.73 measuring 30 guntas situated at Thubarahalli Village, Varthur Holbi, Bengaluru South Taluk (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit schedule property’ for short). The case of the plaintiffs is that late Chowdappa purchased 35 guntas in Survey No.73 by a registered sale deed dated 18.01.1947. Out of this, 05 guntas were sold to one Sri Paji C. Lurke. After Chowdappa’s death on 08.03.2001, the land was partitioned among the legal heirs, i.e., the plaintiffs. The defendant-Aircrafts Employees Cooperative Society Limited (‘society’ for short), which had developed nearby lands for its members, are attempting to trespass and encroach the plaintiffs’ property and hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

Written statement:

3. Suit is not maintainable and is barred under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the KCS Act’ for short). Further, it is contended that the land including Survey No.73 was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the society. Notification was issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act,’ for short) dated 24.09.1981 and under Section 6 (1) final notification dated 14.10.1982 was issued under the LA Act . The award was passed, compensation was paid to the land owners and possession was taken and handed over to the society. It is averred that the layout is formed and approved by the BDA. Civic amenity site is reserved for park. Relinquishment deeds have been executed in favour of BDA and the plaintiffs have no subsisting right or possession.

4. The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the gazette notification Ex.D1 proved acquisition under the LA Act and PW.1 admitted that the Government had issued notification for Survey No.73 and handed over the land to the society. The Trial Court further noted the Award (Ex.D4) and possession notices (Ex.D5 and Ex.D6) confirmed acquisition and transfer to the defendant. The Trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession or any interference by the defendant. While answering issue No.3, the Trial Court held that the suit is not barred under the LA Act or under Section 125 of the KCS Act. The Civil Court had jurisdiction, but the plaintiffs failed to prove their entitlement for injunction on merits and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by which, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that although the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act dated 24.09.1981 (Ex.D1) mentioned acquisition of 04 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.73, while the final notification under Section 6 (1) (Ex.D2) confines only to 03 acres 25 guntas and thus, it is contended that the difference in extent between the preliminary and the final notification itself, shows that not the entire land claimed by the plaintiffs was notified or acquired. The remaining extent approximately 35 guntas continued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39480

Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over disputes involving land already acquired and possessed under the Land Acquisition Act; such issues must follow statutory remedies.

Cases Referred (2)