The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by defendants challenging an appellate order granting a temporary injunction in favor of a college operator in a dispute over land possession, upholding the appellate finding on balance of convenience and prima facie case.
Writ petition dismissed. Pending applications in the writ petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 44269 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/AT CHOODASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALL I RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M/S MATA AMRITHANANDAMAYI MATH HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT AMIRTHAPURI, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA AND BRANCH OFFICE AT KESAYANAHALLI,SY.NO.26 AND 27, ANEKAL TALUK, REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE -SRI S. DHANARAJ
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SUDHA S.N., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT ANEKAL IN M.A.NO.15/2016 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2017 ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL IN M.A.NO.15/2016 ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2017 passed in M.A. No.15/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Anekal, whereby the Appellate Court had reversed the order of status quo granted by the Trial Court and granted injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff, the defendants are before this Court.
guntas. In fact, there is no dispute about the fact that the land belong to the Government. The Government has granted the suit schedule property to the plaintiff on 04.09.2007 for a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre. The plaintiff had paid the sale consideration amount and the Tahasildar of Anekal has executed absolute sale deed on 13.09.2007 on behalf of the Government. Ever since, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They are now running an Engineering college in the name and style of 'Amrita School of Engineering'. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are in unauthorized occupation of the adjacent land in Sy. No.73. On 25.11.2015, the plaintiff started the work to form a playground for the purpose of College activities. The defendants with large number of their supporters unlawfully entered into the suit schedule property and prevented the plaintiff from carrying out the work in the playground. Hence, they have come up with the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:25303 WP No. 44269 of 2017
the Tahasildar in Form No.53 on 17.12.1998 to regularize his unauthorized occupation. The same is pending consideration. It is the case of the defendant No.1 that with an intention to grab the land, the plaintiff has come up with such a suit. The Trial Court had refused to grant injunction, but directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and possession of the property bearing Sy. No.73 . While passing such an order, the Trial Court has observed about the case of the plaintiff and the case of the defendants. It observed that the defendants have a right to protect their possession of the property and the relief of an injunction is an equitable relief which cannot be granted as per the whims and fancies and the Court has to carefully probe into the matter in issue and it is necessary that no one should suffer and the person who knocks the door of the Court should approach the Court with clean hands and the case has to be made out. In the opinion of the Trial Court, the plaintiff has failed to establish that it is only the plaintiff who will be put to more hardship, if the injunction is refused. It is observed that by virtue of the said sale deed, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, but the balance of convenience leaned not only in favour of the plaintiff but also in
NC: 2024:KHC:25303 WP No. 44269 of 2017
favour of the defendants and accordingly, directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit.
all considered the unauthorized occupation of defendant No.1 over the suit survey number, the Trial Court has considered the possession of defendant No.1 over the suit survey number and granted an order in his favour. The Appellate Court has found fault with the approach of the Trial Court and held that it is outside the purview of the principles laid down while granting the temporary injunction. The Appellate Court has also found fault with the observation of the Trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to establish that it is only the plaintiff who will be put to more hardship if injunction is refused. The Appellate Court observed that the plaintiff is running a College in the suit schedule property and it is maintaining the playground for its students and it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are causing disturbance to the students to use the playground and the revenue officials had identified the suit schedule property through a sketch and the Government had also identified the suit schedule property with specific boundaries. Even if the order of injunction is granted, it will operate only in respect of the suit schedule property identified in the sketch and also in the sale deed. The Trial Court ought to have considered the I.A. No.1 filed by the plaintiff either positively or
NC: 2024:KHC:25303 WP No. 44269 of 2017
negatively, but ought not to have granted an order of status quo . Further, the whole extent of land in Sy. No.73 was not the subject matter of the suit and the Appellate Court has observed that the Trial Court has exceeded its limits in granting order of status quo to the whole extent of land in Sy. No.73 when the parties have approached the Court in respect of only 05 acres 18½ guntas of land in Sy. No.73 and accordingly, granted injunction. Aggrieved thereby, now the defendants are before this Court.
order of status quo which the Appellate Court had modified the same and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that as the suit is in the fag end of the trial, the order that is passed by the Trial Court granting status quo may be restored and there may be a direction to the Trial Court to dispose off the pending suit which is of the year 2015. He submits that writ petition has to be allowed.
petitioners-defendants, perused the entire material on record.
of an extent of 05 acres 18½ guntas of land in Sy. No.73 and
NC: 2024:KHC:25303 WP No. 44269 of 2017
the plaintiff is claiming ownership of the said property as the sale deed is executed by the Tahasildar, Anekal after the plaintiff paid the consideration for the same. The case of the defendant is that according to him, 01 acre of land which is in his possession is part of 05 acres 18½ guntas which is granted in favour of the plaintiff by the Government. The Trial Court observed that if an order of injunction is granted, it will cause loss and hardship to the defendants also and there is no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. The Appellate Court is of the view that when the documents such as allotment letter, registered sale deed, the survey mahazar wherein it mentions about an extent of 05 acres 18½ guntas of land, which is allotted to the plaintiff, by placing the said documents, the plaintiff has demonstrated before the Court that an extent of 05 acres 18½ guntas of land in Sy. No.73 is allotted to it and there is a College run by the plaintiff in the said premises. It is the case of the defendant No.1 that the allotment in favour of the plaintiff is in the year 2007 and the suit is filed in the year 2015. It is not the case of defendant No.1 nor he has come before the Court stating that without taking possession, the suit property is allotted to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is interfering
NC: 2024:KHC:25303 WP No. 44269 of 2017
with his possession. It is the plaintiff's suit questioning the interference of the defendant. The documents on record clearly shows that the plaintiff has paid a lot of amount to the Government and the Government has allotted the same. They are running a Engineering College and plaintiff could satisfy the three ingredients for grant of injunction. The Appellate Court had rightly granted the injunction in favour of the plaintiff and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition challenging the appellate order granting temporary injunction in a suit for possession and injunction.
Whether the trial court acted correctly in granting status quo instead of injunction in a dispute over government-granted educational land.
SRI. ANNAYYAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA
SRI. RAJAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA
M/S MATA AMRITHANANDAMAYI MATH
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
