Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 147 (KAR)

Bangalore Development Authority v. Arifa Kauser

2015-02-04

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

body2015
JUDGMENT A.V. Chandrashekara, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The matter is taken up for final hearing. The order of granting temporary injunction in O.S. No. 283/01 by the learned XL Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on 27.01.2011 is called in question. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the said suit and the appellants are the defendants in the said suit. 2. The parties will be referred to as 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants' as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that they have been in possession for quite a long time, as such, they have acquired the status of a settled possession. With these pleadings they have filed a suit requesting the Court to grant the relief of declaration that they are in settled possession and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The said suit has been contested by filing detailed written statement by BDA, which is a statutory authority created under the BDA Act, 1976. According to the defendants, the suit itself is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that no injunction could have been granted when the very maintainability of the suit looms large at the threshold. 4. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is a part and parcel of erstwhile Sy. Nos. 96/2 & 96/3 of Kacharkanahally Village, K.R. Pura Hobli. As could be seen from the very impugned order, acquisition proceedings have attained finality and possession has been taken over and award has now been passed. In the written statement, the defendants have emphatically averred that they have taken possession in accordance with law and the same is notified under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. The suit so filed by the plaintiff is virtually challenging the very acquisition on the ground that the possession has not been taken over. It is too premature to disbelieve the statutory notification filed under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act insofar as taking over possession by BDA. 6. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have put up construction and that needs to be protected till they are evicted under due process of law. It is too premature to disbelieve the statutory notification filed under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act insofar as taking over possession by BDA. 6. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have put up construction and that needs to be protected till they are evicted under due process of law. In the case of John B. James and Others v. Bangalore Development Authority, this Court in the reported decision ILR 2011 (4) Kar 460, has held that even if a person is found to be in possession of property belonging to a statutory authority for quite a long time, the statutory authority cannot evict him or her except in accordance with law. Till such time the plaintiffs will have to be protected against unlawful dispossession only. Any how, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs has fairly submitted that his parties are not interested in putting up further construction or effect major change to the existing building. Hence, the order of the trial Court insofar as it relates to the existing structures and buildings are concerned, same state of things will have to be maintained till the disposal of the suit. In the light of oral submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, both the parties will have to be directed to maintain the same state of things as they exist today till the disposal of the suit or till they are evicted in accordance with law as per the principles reiterated in John B. James case mentioned above. As the suit is of the year 2011, the learned Judge to dispose of the matter at the earliest preferably within a period of nine months from today. The learned Advocates to co-operate with the Court in expeditious disposal of the case. LCR be sent to the trial Court at the earliest.