Sri V Vijayan vs The Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 1295 Kant

                               -1-



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 421/2015 (INJ)


BETWEEN:

SRI. V. VIJAYAN
S/O SRI V. SHIVASHANKARAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5 (PORTION)
C/O RAJANNA,MUNISWARA NURSERY,
TAVAREKERE,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE, FOR
    SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
K P WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.
                               ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)


     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 15.12.2014 PASSED IN OS. NO. 289/2008 ON THE
FILE OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
                               -2-



BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE           SUIT    FOR    PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AND POSSESSION.

    THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON                     FOR
ADMISSION, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

The appellant's suit in O.S.No.289/2008 on the file of

the XL Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for

short, 'civil Court') against the Bangalore Development

Authority is dismissed by the impugned judgment dated

15.12.2014.

2. The appellant has filed the suit in

O.S.No.289/2008 for permanent injunction in respect of

the lands in Sy.Nos.80 and 80/2A of Kothnur Village,

Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (subject

propertoes), and the respondent's defence is that the lands

in these survey numbers have been acquired under

provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act. In

the light of such defence, the civil Court relying upon the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner,

BDA & Another v. Brijesh Reddy & Another - (2013) 3 SCC

66 has dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit

cannot be maintained and the appellant would not be

entitled for grant of injunction.

3. It cannot be gainsaid that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, and in fact the learned counsel

for the appellant does not controvert the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court Commissioner, BDA & Another v.

Brijesh Reddy & Another supra would apply in all force,

and if this remains beyond the pale of dispute, no exception

can be taken without the impugned judgment. Therefore,

the appeal would not survive for consideration. Hence, the

appeal stands disposed of with liberty to the appellant,

subject to all just exceptions in law, to pursue his remedy

in a manner known to law.

In view of disposal of the appeal, IA No.1/2015 does

not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE

SA Ct:sr