Judgment : The appeal by the Bangalore Development Authority arise out of the interim order passed by the City Civil Court in OS 7025/2012. The property in question (Site No. 4C420) is said to be part of Sy. No.21/1 of Kacharakanahlli Village, Bangalore North which the BDA has acquired by a preliminary notification dated 21.3.1977 to the extent of 3.12 acres, followed by a final notification dated 14.5.1980. It appears the original owner, after the notification, has sold the property in favour of Tanveer Shariff on 14.7.2003. This Tanveer Shariff sold the same to Nadeem Pasha on 19.11.2008 and Nadeem Pasha has sold in favour of Afroze Ahmed, the plaintiff. The BDA is in appeal on the ground that the property is already acquired by it and also possession has been taken on 13.6.1983 itself as per the mahazar and also contended that the suit itself is not maintainable, the order passed by the trial court by way of an interim order to maintain status quo or any other order is non-est. The appellant BDA has also sought to vacate the interim order passed. In support of his argument, counsel representing the BDA has relied upon several decisions- 1995 (5) SCC 335 - Mahavir & Anr Vs Rural Institute, Amravathi & Anr. 2013 (3) SCC 66 - Commissioner, BDA Vs Brijesh Reddy & Anr. ILR 2007 KAR 5121 - M B Bettaswamy Vs Commissioner, BDA AIR 2008 KAR 117 - Commissioner, BDA Vs M/s Adi Housing industries Ltd & Ors. to contend that the suit itself is not maintainable, the plaintiff is not in settled possession and the various events that has taken place do not demonstrate that he is in settled possession. The Apex Court in Mahaveer’s case cited supra regarding adverse possession has observed, where possession of the acquired land is taken by the State and handed over to the respondents society, the society becomes the absolute owner of the said land plea of adverse possession has been rightly negated by the courts below. The Apex Court in Mahaveer’s case cited supra regarding adverse possession has observed, where possession of the acquired land is taken by the State and handed over to the respondents society, the society becomes the absolute owner of the said land plea of adverse possession has been rightly negated by the courts below. In Brijesh Reddy’s case cited above, relied upon by the appellant’s counsel, the Apex Court has observed that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to sever public purpose and civil court cannot taken cognizance and as per S. 9, CPC, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction on invalidity of procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. In Addi Housing Industries Ltd’s case, noted above, the Division Bench of this Court has held plaintiff therein has not derived any title or interest in the schedule land and possession of the plaintiff as per the alleged sale deed is not lawful and the suit liable to be dismissed. In Bettaswamy’s case noted above, it is observed that the trial court extending sympathy directed the BDA to issue and evict the plaintiff in accordance with law but such sympathy will harm public interest as there are several other persons waiting for lawful allotment. Thus, it is his contention that plaintiff has not proved his title or remain in possession and that the dismissal of the suit is justified. Per contra, counsel representing the plaintiff/ respondent has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surjith Singh & Ors Vs Harbans Singh & Ors - AIR 1996 SC 135 to contend that in defiance of the restraint order, assignment was by one party and the assignees in the circumstance cannot claim to be impleaded as parties on the basis of assignment. Counsel also relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in WP 38306-308/2011 decided on 12.10.2012 to contend that in similar circumstance, this Court opined that when a person is in settled possession in the face of material document produced, the course is open under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974. On hearing both the sides, it is seen, the property in question undoubtedly has been acquired by the BDA way back in the year 1977. On hearing both the sides, it is seen, the property in question undoubtedly has been acquired by the BDA way back in the year 1977. Of course, it is a developed layout and site no.30 is a corner site. The original owner, after acquisition notification, has sold it in favour of a third party during 2003. At the outset, plaintiff is said to be the 4th purchaser of the land in question. Way back in the year 2003, after the notification, the original owner of the land has sold the property in favour of several other persons. The fact remains that possession of the property has been taken by the BDA during 1983 itself as per the mahazar produced before this Court. Apart from that, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Brijesh Reddy’s case, under S.9, CPC the civil court cannot go into the matter of passing an order of injunction much less a declaration. Even if any order is passed by the trial court without looking into the legal position, such an order at the most, would be a non-est order. Further more, as transpired the property is sold in public auction on 13.8.2012. Might be there is irregularity. Possession certificate also has issued on 12.12.2012 which is a consequence of delivering the property to the auction purchaser consequent on the finality reached in the public auction held. In that view of the matter, there is no violation of the order passed by the civil court, by the BDA. The judgment relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff’s counsel is with reference to the order passed in writ petition wherein several observations are made to the effect that if a purchaser is in settled possession, such settled possession adverse to the owner continues for twelve years, or thirty years but in the case on hand, though the sale was made in favour of a third person by the original owner during 2003 or so, the BDA by an auction has sold the property during 2012 by virtue of possession being taken on 13.6.1983 under mahazar, it does not necessarily mean that plaintiff is in settled possession as he had not completed twelve years or thirty years against the government even then. In that situation, the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff being devoid of merits, the appeal filed by the BDA has to be allowed. In that situation, the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff being devoid of merits, the appeal filed by the BDA has to be allowed. The construction if any, put up by the plaintiff or his predecessor in title even after approval of the plan by the BBMP is without verification of the acquisition proceedings by the BDA and will not be binding on the BDA. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.