Karnataka High Court
Jagram Yadav vs The Karnataka Industrial Areas ... on 22 July, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27522
RFA No. 1605 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1605 OF 2017 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
F.BALARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O. FRANCIS XAVIER,
NO.5, GRAPE GARDEN,
S.M.ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.CHETHANA., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.B.S.MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
Digitally signed by (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING),
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH 14/3, II FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 002.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27522
RFA No. 1605 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Smt.Chethana., counsel on behalf of Sri.B.S.Manjunath.,
for the appellant and Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar., counsel for the
respondent have appeared in person.
2. This is an appeal from the Court of XL Addl. City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-41).
3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to
as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.
4. The short facts are these:
The plaintiff was inducted in the suit schedule property in
pursuance of the Rental Agreement dated 01.03.1994 and the
same was renewed and a fresh Lease Deed was executed in
1996. He is doing business of Manufacturing, Processing, Hard
Chrome Plating of Engineering Goods in the name of M/s.Leo
Engineering, a proprietary concern registered with Small
Industries Department. The plaintiff is carrying the work in the
schedule premises along with several employees. It is said that
the officials of the KIADB visited the property and made spot
inspection and caused obstruction and threatened to dispossess
NC: 2025:KHC:27522
HC-KAR
him from the schedule premises. Under these circumstances,
he was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and
filed a suit for permanent injunction.
After service of the suit summons, the defendant
appeared through its counsel and filed a detailed written
statement and denied the plaint averments. They contended
that the Government of Karnataka notified the suit land with an
intention to acquire for the purpose of formation of Industrial
Area. Further, under Section 28(2) of the KIADB Act, Notice
was issued to Gangamma - the original owner to file objections
to the Notification and after considering the objections, rejected
the same under Section 28(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the
Government issued Declaration No.CI 153 SPQ 91 dated
30.10.1992 and published it in Karnataka Gazette on
12.11.1992 declaring that entire 05 Acres 30 Guntas of land in
Sy.No.6/10 of Peenya Village is required for the purpose of
KIADB. By virtue of Section 28(4) and (5) of the Act, the land
vested to Government free from all encumbrances. Aggrieved
by the said action, Gangamma filed a Writ Petition in
No.171/1993 and the same came to be dismissed on
NC: 2025:KHC:27522
HC-KAR
31.05.2002. After dismissal of the Writ Petition, a Notice was
issued to Gangamma and was duly served on her. She did not
vacate the premises, hence the Special Land Acquisition Officer
took possession of the land under Mahazar on 04.09.2002.
Gangamma preferred an appeal in W.A.No.3657/2002 and the
appeal was also dismissed on 05.09.2007. Hence, they prayed
for dismissal of the suit.
The Trial Court framed issues, the parties led evidence
and documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment
and Decree dated 22.08.2017 dismissed the suit. Hence, the
plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of CPC.
5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal
papers with care.
6. The short point that requires consideration is
whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires
interference.
7. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require
reiteration. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the
NC: 2025:KHC:27522
HC-KAR
plaintiff seeking the relief of an injunction. As could be seen
from the nature of the lis between the parties, the suit is one
for a bare injunction based on possession as of the date of filing
of the suit. The right to an injunction is based on a prima facie
right. The issue revolves around the factum of possession as of
the date of filing of the suit. It would be relevant to see that in
a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must prove her/his lawful
possession and enjoyment over the suit property as of the date
of filing of the suit.
Reverting to the facts of the case, plaintiff contends that
he is in possession of the suit property and there was an
interference by the KIADB. It is significant to note that the
KIADB had already acquired the land and possession was taken
in 2002. Except stating that he is in lawful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has failed
to establish possession over the suit property as of the date of
filing of the suit. It is pivotal to note that the plaintiff himself
admits that he is not the owner of the property in question.
Furthermore, the acquisition proceedings have attained finality
and the land vests with the KIADB as of the date of filing of the
suit. Hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of
NC: 2025:KHC:27522
HC-KAR
permanent injunction. The Trial Court is justified in dismissing
the suit. I find not grounds to interfere with the Judgment and
Decree of the Trial Court.
8. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
