1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.303/2013 BETWEEN: 1. Sri K V Lokesh S/o K G Venkatanarayana Gupta Aged about 36 years No.119/34, 9 th Main BSK Ist Stage Ist Block, Srinagar Bangalore 560 050. 2. Smt.Girija Lokesh W/o K V Lokesh Aged about 33 years At No.119/34, 9 th Main BSK 1 st Stage 1 st Block, Srinagar Bangalore 560 050. Also both are R/at No.20 1 st D Main, 11 th Cross Girinagar Bangalore 560 085....APPELLANTS (By Sri:Shanmukhappa, Adv)
2 AND: 1. The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority Kumara Park West Bangalore 560 020. 2. Assistant Commissioner (Re-convey & Allotment) Section BDA Kumara park West Bangalore 560 020... RESPONDENTS (By Sri:G Lakshmeesh Rao, Adv for R2, R1 - served) This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 passed in OS No.7103/2006 on the file of XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. This RFA is coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following: J U D G M E N T This appeal coming up for orders, it was observed on the previous occasion by this Court that a Civil Suit was not the appropriate remedy in a case where the subject matter of the suit is acquired land and it is not in dispute that the Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the BDA
3 for brevity) had acquired certain lands under the provisions of Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the BDA Act, for brevity). 2. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that though BDA have acquired the lands to form sites, the suit property was not one of the sites formed in the acquired land. It is on this controversy, that the Civil Court was required to record a finding. The Civil Court, however, has dismissed the suit on the ground that it would not have jurisdiction to address the dispute in respect of the acquired land and therefore, the present appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants would point out that BDA itself has issued an endorsement that the site which is formed in the suit property was not part of the acquired land. What has been acquired is land bearing Sy.No.35/2, whereas the suit property is formed on Sy.No.38/2. To which the learned Counsel for the respondents-bda would submit that it is immaterial whether the land is acquired in the land bearing Sy.No35/2 or in Sy.No.38/2, when both the items of the lands have been acquired under the provisions of the erstwhile CITB
4 Act. Therefore, he would submit that any controversy in respect of lands which has been the subject matter of acquisition proceedings can only be appreciated in the writ jurisdiction of this Court and not before a Civil Court. This is indeed the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another Vs Brijesh Reddy and another reported in (2013) 3 SCC 66. 4. In that view of the matter, there is substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents. If the appellants are seriously disputing the fact that the subject matter of the suit was not a part of the acquired land, they can very well agitate the same in writ proceedings, where the writ court is in a position to examine with reference to the record. Proceedings in certiorari, throw open the entire gamut of the contentions and it would be convenient for the writ court to examine the case. Therefore, without prejudice to any remedy that may be available to the appellants, the present appeal is disposed of as not maintainable.
5 IA.2/2015 filed for production of additional documents and IA.3/2015 filed for extension of interim order do not survive for consideration, hence, are disposed of accordingly. *bgn/- Sd/- JUDGE