IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1366 OF 2013 Between:
Sri.Ravikumar @ Ravibabu, S/o.late Govindappa, Aged about 48 years, R/o Flat No.10, Ramya Apartments, Jeevanbhimanagar, Bengaluru – 560075. …Appellant (By Sri.B.S.Murali, Advocate) And:
1. The Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Bengaluru – 560020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
2. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Post Bag No.1784, Bengaluru – 560017, Represented by its Senior Manager (P & A) Legal and Estate. …Respondents (By Sri.Ashwin.S.Halady, Advocate for R1 Sri.S.V.Shastri, Advocate for R2) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC., against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.09.2012 passed in OS No.25855/2008 on the file of the XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.25855/2008. The suit is for permanent injunction to restrain the Bangalore Development Authority and HAL Aeronautics Limited i.e., Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit from interfering with his possession over property measuring to an extent of 11 guntas in Sy. No.49 of Kodihalli Village, Vartur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The trial Court decided the issue No.4 treating it as a preliminary issue and held that the suit is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before the Court.
2. Heard the appellant’s counsel and the respondents’ counsel and perused the impugned judgment.
3. The total extent of land in Sy.No.49 is 3 acres 23 guntas. Defendant No.2 acquired 1 acre 14 guntas of land very long back and later on the defendant No.1 acquired 2 acres 9 guntas. The plaintiff claim to be in possession of 11 guntas. Since a contention has been taken in the written statement that land was acquired long back and suit was not maintainable, the trial court framed preliminary issue. The trial court’s observations are that entire land was acquired long back and if the plaintiff had taken over possession by virtue of some interim orders in some proceedings, such a possession does give a right to institute a suit. The trial Court has referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in T.N.Housing Board v/s A.Viswam (Dead) by Lrs (AIR 1996 SC 3377), State of Bihar v/s Dhirendra Kumar and others (AIR 1995 SC 1955) to come to this conclusion.
4. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argues that inspite of acquisition, the appellant remained in possession of 11 guntas of land and therefore, he has been in possession for quite a long time, it has to be held that still the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain a suit for injunction. It is settled principle that once land vests with Government by way of acquisition, the land owner is only entitled to compensation. Even in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Brijesh Reddy and another (Civil Appeal 1051/2013), it has been held that the suit of this nature is not maintainable. The position of law being so, I don’t find that this appeal is worth admission. Hence, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NS