JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. The appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 questioning the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Court of III Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-25) at Bengaluru in O.S.No.1351/2025 on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is allowed restraining the defendants from changing the nature of suit schedule property or from putting up construction in the suit schedule property. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and also sought for relief of mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment caused by the defendants over the suit schedule 'B' property, which is coming within the suit schedule ‘A’ property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. 3. Also, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction and the trial court considering the observation made in O.S.No.1470/2017 that the BDA has issued an endorsement that 33 guntas of land in Sy.No.18/7B is not included in the said layout which is approved by the BDA, formed an opinion that BDA has not approved the inclusion of Sy.No.18/7B and therefore, granted an order of temporary injunction. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the entire land in Sy.No.18/7B to the extent of 1 acre 06 guntas was acquired by way of Preliminary Notification dated 28.01.1985 and by Final Notification dated 24.01.1986 for the purpose of formation of layout and accordingly, handed over the said acquired land in favour of ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited, Bengaluru (for short ‘ITI Society’) and the said ITI Society has formed layout and the defendants are vendors who had purchased Site No.203 formed by the ITI Society and thereafter the defendants purchased the said Site No.203. It is submitted that the plaintiffs do not have locus standi to challenge the said acquisition proceedings of the entire land acquired and the plaintiff has lost the title. Therefore, there is no question of seeking declaration of relief and as such, the suit itself is not maintainable. 5. Also, by placing reliance on the endorsement dated 09.04.1982 it is submitted that BDA has given an endorsement in respect of land bearing Sy.No.18/7B and other survey numbers the BDA has reserved to approve the private layout. Therefore, there is no question of seeking declaration of relief and as such, the suit itself is not maintainable. 5. Also, by placing reliance on the endorsement dated 09.04.1982 it is submitted that BDA has given an endorsement in respect of land bearing Sy.No.18/7B and other survey numbers the BDA has reserved to approve the private layout. Therefore, the ITI society has formed layout and allotted the sites and thus in this way when the plaintiffs have lost title over the property therefore the suit itself is not maintainable. Hence, the plaintiffs have not proved the prima facie case and balance of convenience.Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. He places reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) AIR 2015 SC 1462 : VELAXAN KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (ii) AIR 2015 SC 440 : RAM KISHAN AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. (iii) AIR 2015 SC 2041 : KARNAIL KAUR AND ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. (iv) AIR 2015 SC 444 : M/S. MAGNUM PROMOTERS P. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both parties and on perusal of materials produced on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendants demonstrate that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendants demonstrate that plaintiffs have made out case of balance of convenience on the basis of materials produced before the court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if an order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff, then the defendants would be put into irreparable loss or injury? (iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the trial court requires any interference? 8. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners and having title over the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 06 guntas including the encroached area of 200 sq.ft. out of schedule ‘A’ property. (iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the trial court requires any interference? 8. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners and having title over the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 06 guntas including the encroached area of 200 sq.ft. out of schedule ‘A’ property. Though the defendants have placed reliance on the Gazette Notification of Preliminary Notification, as above stated, that the land was acquired by the BDA on behalf of ITI Society for the purpose of formation of layout, prima facie the extent of land acquired is shown in the Gazette Notification is 1 acre 05 guntas. There is an explanation from the defendants regarding the remaining 00-09 guntas. 9. The plaintiffs have not challenged acquisition notifications, but have sought declaration to declare that they are the owners on the ground that the BDA has not formed the layout and the layout plan was not approved and in this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/defendants places reliance on the document, which is endorsement issued by the BDA dated 27.07.2001, in which the BDA has made an endorsement that the BDA has not included the land Sy.No.18/7B in the approved layout. At the very same time, the learned counsel for the defendants places reliance on the endorsement of the BDA dated 09.04.1992, in which, in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.18/7B the layout plan was approved. Therefore, there are two rival documents regarding approval of layout on the land bearing Sy.No.18/7B. Therefore, whether the BDA has taken possession or not of the land Sy.No.18/7B, is a question for trial before the court. 10. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants places reliance on the layout plan, but in the said layout plan on the land bearing Sy.No.18/7B there is no formation of layout and it is kept blank. Therefore, the question before the trial court is whether the BDA though acquired the land Sy.No.18/7B, by virtue of Preliminary Notification, as above stated, but the question to be considered is, whether the BDA has taken possession of the said land or not, is a matter for trial before the trial court. 11. Therefore, the question before the trial court is whether the BDA though acquired the land Sy.No.18/7B, by virtue of Preliminary Notification, as above stated, but the question to be considered is, whether the BDA has taken possession of the said land or not, is a matter for trial before the trial court. 11. In this context, when the suit is filed for declaration but not challenging the notifications, therefore under the difference in facts and circumstances involved in the above stated cases, the said citations relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants are not applicable are not applicable in the present case at this stage. Therefore, it is not the case of the plaintiffs that questioning challenge to the notifications, but claiming declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the properties. There is no documents placed by the appellants/defendants that even after notifications were upheld by this Court in the writ appeal, but the question remained is whether the BDA has taken possession of the land is a matter for trial. Therefore, when all these disputed facts are involved in the case, those are to be tried in the suit. Just because this Court in the writ appeal has upheld the notifications that means at the most the notifications were upheld, but regarding whether BDA has taken possession or not, is a question remained to be considered in the suit in the trial. Therefore, the plaintiffs have made prima facie case and balance of convenience and accordingly, justified the granting of temporary injunction. 12. Furthermore, the vendor of the defendants has filed suit in O.S.No.1470/2017, in which, the trial court has observed that the BDA has given endorsement to the effect that layout approved by the BDA does not cover the Sy.No.18/7B. When the defendants’ vendor has taken a contention in the said O.S.No.1470/2017 that the endorsement issued by the BDA to the effect that layout approved by the BDA does not cover Sy.No.18/7B, it indicates prima facie contention of the plaintiffs. 13. Further the ITI Society, as above stated, has filed the suit for injunction against the plaintiffs herein in respect of 33 guntas in Sy.No.18/7B. When the suit filed by the ITI Society claiming possession over the land and filed the suit for injunction and same is dismissed, therefore, it shows prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. 13. Further the ITI Society, as above stated, has filed the suit for injunction against the plaintiffs herein in respect of 33 guntas in Sy.No.18/7B. When the suit filed by the ITI Society claiming possession over the land and filed the suit for injunction and same is dismissed, therefore, it shows prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, when the suit is filed for declaration and for mandatory nature for removal of the encroached area, all these questions above discussed are matter for trial to be considered in the suit. Therefore, I do not see any perversity in the order passed by the trial Court.Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.(i) to (iv) in the negative. 14. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The trial court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the suit expeditiously, for which both the parties shall cooperate with the trial court without seeking unnecessary adjournment in the suit. (iii) Whatever the observations made above are only for the purpose of considering the application of temporary injunction and shall not be considered as discussions and merits involved in the case; hence, the trial court is directed to consider the suit in accordance with law after receiving the evidence from both the sides independently without being influenced by any of the observations made above as expeditiously as possible. (iv) Also, the above said observation shall not come in the way of considering any other applications filed by the defendants and the application shall be disposed of independently on its merits without getting influenced by the above said observations.