Karnataka High Court
Beml Employees Society Township Club vs The Commissioner on 22 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
MFA No. 4804 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4804 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
BEML EMPLOYEES SOCIETY
TOWNSHIP CLUB
A REGISTERED CLUB
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES ACT
HAVING ITS REGISTERED CLUB AT
NO.648, BEML LAYOUT, 4TH STAGE
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 098
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR
SRI. B.M. SURESH
S/O LATE B.N. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
ANJALI M
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARAPARK WEST
SESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU
2. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
NO.2, SOUTH SUB DIVISION
B.D.A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
MFA No. 4804 of 2025
HC-KAR
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 070
3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARAPALIKE
CORPORATION OFFICES
N.R.SQUARE, J.C.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 002
4. THE BEML EMPLOYEES' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.2/1
(OLD NO.97) 2ND FLOOR
KANIKSHA HOTEL ROAD
GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI. H.S. RAVIPRASAD
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.A. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI. B.G. SANGAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APLLICAITON IA No.4/25)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.05.06.2025 IN
O.S.NO.8623/2024 ON I.A.No. 2 to 4 THE FILE OF THE XL
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY, (CCH-41), DISMISSING THE I.A.NO. 2 TO 4 FILED
U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
MFA No. 4804 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the
appellant - BEML Employees Society Township Club, under
Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, (for short, "CPC") being aggrieved by the common
order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the XL Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-41), in
O.S.No.8623/2024, whereby the learned trial Court
dismissed the applications filed by the appellant under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC,
seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents,
including the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA),
from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the Civic Amenity (CA) sites bearing Nos. 8,
9 and 13, situated in BEML layout, which are popularly
known as the Boat Club, Crazy Park/Recreation Club, and
Swimming Pool respectively. The said order of rejection of
interim relief has given rise to the present appeal wherein
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
HC-KAR
the appellant seeks to safeguard his long-standing
possession and use of the CA sites pending final
adjudication of the suit for permanent injunction.
2. It is the case of the appellant that, it is a
registered society established under the Karnataka Society
Registration Act, having its principal object, i.e., the
welfare, social integration, and community development of
BEML employees and their families residing in the BEML
layout. It is not disputed that, the appellant has been in
possession of the aforesaid CA sites for more than 3 and a
half decades and that these properties were developed for
public utility and recreation.
3. The appellant asserts that, its possession is not
only lawful, it is also backed by registered deeds of
relinquishment executed in the year 1993, under which
the properties were allegedly vested in the society for the
purpose of maintenance and community use. It is further
submitted that over the past decades, the appellant has
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
HC-KAR
made substantial capital and recurring investments in
developing the infrastructure, including creation of
manmade lake, maintenance of a swimming pool, and
development of the park and recreation club, all of which
have been serving the local residents and society
members in consonance with the stated objectives of the
society.
4. According to the appellant, the sudden issuance
of notices by the BDA in the months of August and
September 2024, alleging unauthorised use of the CA sites
and threatening action for noncompliance, is not only
devoid of jurisdiction but also contrary to the spirit and
purpose of the original planning scheme under which the
layout was developed for the benefit of the employees and
residents of the area.
5. The appellant also points out that property tax
for these sites is regularly paid to the Bruhath Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), which, it contends, is an
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
HC-KAR
acknowledgment of the appellant's possession and use. It
is the appellant's specific grievance that, a trial Court
failed to take into account the deeds of relinquishment and
the legal effects and instead proceeded on a narrow
interpretation of the BDA's authority under the planning
laws, thereby dismissing the appellant's plea for interim
protection without due appreciation of the factual and legal
foundation laid before it.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant disputes
the trial Court's finding that the facilities are being run for
commercial gain. It is argued that although certain events
such as community functions or cultural gatherings may
occasionally involve collection of charges to defray
operational costs, the same does not transform the nature
of the activity from community-based service to
commercial enterprise. The Club asserts that it runs
strictly on a "no profit, no loss" basis and reinvests all its
revenues towards maintenance and service improvements
for the benefit of the localities residents. It is submitted
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
HC-KAR
that such self-sustaining models are integral to the
functioning of the community organizations and cannot be
equated with the profit-oriented commercial exploitation.
The appellant insists that the trial Court's blanket
characterization of its activities as commercial is erroneous
and unsupported by material on record.
7. On the other hand, the respondents,
particularly the BDA, have sought to justify the action by
relying on the statutory obligations imposed upon them by
the BDA Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Town and Country
Planning Act, 1961, which require them to ensure that CA
sites are used strictly for the purposes for which they were
reserved under the sanctioned layout plan. The
respondents contend that the appellant's use of CA sites
for club activities, including running a bar and restaurant
and allowing the premises to be used for marriage
functions, amounts to a deviation from the designated use
and hence constitutes an unauthorised use warranting
regulatory intervention.
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
HC-KAR
8. The learned counsel for the BDA further argues
that the deeds of relinquishment, even if accepted, do not
transfer ownership to the society and that any such use
remains subject to compliance with the planning norms
and regulatory approvals. The respondents maintain that
the continued possession of the appellant is illegal in the
absence of formal allotment or sanction and that the public
interest mandates the BDA Act simply to prevent such
unauthorised occupation of public land.
9. I have carefully perused the impugned order of
the trial Court, the pleadings, and the submissions
advanced before this Court. While it is well settled that
interim injunctions are discretionary in nature and are to
be granted only when the applicant demonstrates a prima
facie case, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of
irreparable injury, this Court finds that, the trial Court's
rejection of the appellant's application does not adequately
reflect a balanced consideration of the foundational facts
and documentary evidence. The existence of deeds of
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
HC-KAR
relinquishment, which date back to the year 1993, and the
continuous, uncontested possession of the appellant for
over 35 years, are significant factors that establish at least
a prima facie right in favour of the appellant. These deeds
are not mere instruments of temporary license, but appear
to record a conscious policy decision to allow the society to
develop and manage the CA sites for public and
community welfare. Whether the use has gone beyond
the permissible extent is a question that must be decided
during the course of trial. However, at the interim stage,
the presence of such documents, combined with the long,
peaceful, and public possession, cannot be brushed aside.
10. In view of the pleadings, evidence and
submissions so brought on record, I am of the considered
view that the appellant's activities, even if not strictly
aligned with the original reservation, have catered to the
social, recreational and community needs of the residents,
and that the same cannot be said to be patently voilative
of a public purpose. The abrupt disruption of such long-
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
HC-KAR
standing amenities with due adjudication may lead to
hardship not only for the appellant but also for a large
section of the residents who have come to rely upon these
facilities.
11. The balance of convenience, therefore, leans in
favour of maintaining the existing state of affairs until the
legality of the BDA notices and the scope of the appellant's
rights under the deeds of relinquishment are finally
determined or adjudicated. Furthermore, risk of
irreparable harm is not imaginary, for demolition,
dispossession are forced closer at this stage would render
the entire suit infructuous and irreversibly damage the
appellant's infrastructure, goodwill and service potential.
12. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious
to the statutory obligations of the BDA to enforce planning
norms and ensure orderly urban development. Public
property must not be misused under the guise of
charitable or community activities. Therefore, it becomes
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
HC-KAR
imperative to strike a judicial balance that protects the
equities of the appellant while preserving the regulatory
prerogatives of the respondents. Such a balance can be
achieved by directing all parties to maintain status quo in
respect of the possession, use, and management of the CA
sites, while also subjecting the appellant to certain
reasonable conditions aimed at preventing any expansion
or commercialization pending final adjudication.
13. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this
Court finds it just and equitable to interfere with the order
of the trial Court.
14. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the
XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City (CCH-41), in
O.S.No.8623/2024, dismissing the
appellant's application under Order XXXIX
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
HC-KAR
Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC
is hereby set aside.
(iii) It is ordered that all parties shall maintain
status quo as on the date of this order with
respect to possession, management, and
use of the CA sites known as Boat Club,
Crazy Park/Recreation Club and Swimming
Pool. No coercive steps shall be taken by
the respondents, including BDA, to
dispossess the appellant or interfere with
its use of the said properties, pending
disposal of the suit.
(iv) This interim protection, however, shall be
subject to the condition that the appellant
shall not indulge in purely commercial
exploitation of the CA sites, and shall
ensure that the premises are used in
accordance with the objectives of the
Society as recorded in the registered
deeds.
(v) The appellant shall also co-operate with
the respondents in any lawful inspection or
regulatory oversight that may be
undertaken in accordance with law.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27572
HC-KAR
Further, the learned trial Court is
requested to take up O.S.No.8623/2024
for expeditious disposal in accordance with
law, if possible.
(vi) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
AM
