SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

R.F.A.No.603 OF 2011 (PAR-INJ)

BETWEEN

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD

KUMARA PARK (WEST)

BANGALORE-560020

REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND

SRI VADIVELU

S/O MUTHU KRISHNA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

R/A D.NO. D-96

II MAIN ROAD

RAMACHANDRAPUARM

BANGALORE-560 021

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI.PARAMESHWARAPPA C., ADV.)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96(1) OF CPC AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.01.2011 PASSED IN

O.S.NO.4828/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL

CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT

FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

2

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

The defendant – BDA is in appeal challenging the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4828/2001 dated

01.01.2011 on the file of XVI Additional City Civil Judge,

Bengaluru (CCH No.12).

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiff filed the suit contending that he is the

absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing site

Nos.73 and 74 formed in Sy.No.88/2014 of Laggere

village, Yaswanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, totally

measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 40

feet, comprising of a house measuring 12’X14’. According

to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit property under an

unregistered sale deed and general power of attorney

along with an affidavit executed by his vendor Sri V. Gopal

S/o

Late

Varadappa

on

29.09.1983

for

valuable

consideration and plaintiff was put into the physical

3

possession of the property. From that day onwards the

plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

property. When the matter stood thus, the plaintiff has

paid betterment charges and other charges to the

Dasarahalli Nagarasabhe on 13.11.1997 and 16.06.1998

respectively.

3.

Plaintiff has also paid taxes to the Nagarasabhe

even on 25.01.1999 and the name of the plaintiff has been

entered in the revenue records of Dasarahalli Nagarasabhe

and issued khatha in favour of the plaintiff on 16.11.1997.

4.

All of a sudden on 28.06.2001, officials of BDA

came near the schedule property and threatened the

plaintiff and gave a threat of dispossession and asking the

plaintiff to vacate and demolish the building therein.

Plaintiff resisted the high handed and illegal action of the

BDA and despite the same, there was a threat continued

which necessitated the plaintiff to approach the Court of

law and seek the injunctive relief against the defendant.

4

5.

On receipt of the suit summons, defendant -

BDA entered appearance and filed the written statement

denying the allegations made in the plaint paragraph and

specifically

contended

that

land

bearing

Sy.No.229

measuring 2 acres was notified by the defendant's

Authority for formation of the layout namely; Mahalakshmi

Layout and also Nandini Layout and a preliminary

notification was issued on 16.11.1977 which was published

in the Karnataka Gazette dated 22.12.1977, which was

followed by the final notification as contemplated under

Section 19 (1) of the BDA Act dated 30.08.1979 which was

published in the Karnataka Gazette on 01.11.1979 and

thereafter words the possession of the property was also

taken by BDA.

6.

Smt. Muniyamma W/o Dasappa was notified as

khathedar in respect of Sy.No.229. The defendant-BDA

after issuance of the notification, got issued notices as

contemplated under law to the notified khathedars and

5

passed an award which was also approved by the

competitive Authority and possession of the land thus

vested with the BDA.

7.

Thereafter words, defendant Authority formed

the layout and took possession of the acquired lands and

the plaintiff has no manner of the right over the suit

property as the same is acquired by the BDA and thus

sought for dismissal of the suit.

8.

Based on the rival contentions of the parties,

the Trial Court framed the following issues:

"1)

Whether

the

plaintiff

proves

his

lawful

possession over the suit schedule property on

the date of the suit?

2)

Whether the plaintiff further proves the

alleged interference and obstructions to such

of his possession and enjoyment of the suit

property by the defendant and his men and

also the attempt of illegal demolition of the

existing structure in the suit property?

6

3)

Whether

the

suit

as

brought

is

not

maintainable for non-issuance of statutory

notice under Section 64 of BDA Act?

4)

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief

of permanent injunction as prayed?

5)

What Order or Decree?"

9.

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff,

plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and relied on 13

documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to

P.13, comprising of agreement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top