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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.