Sri. a C Ananthaswamy Vs Nandhi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited

NANDHI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDEN OFF. MAHATHMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.V.S.NAIK, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI. NITHIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS MFA FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED.27.04.2024ON IA.NO.1 IN OS.NO.2571/2024, ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, REJECTING THE IA.NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W. SEC.151 OF CPC. IN TIME.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-43), in O.S.No.2571/2024, on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed.

¶24

The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent praying for order to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is bearing Sy.No.47, Pantarapalya Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring 24 acres 34 guntas as shown in the schedule in the plaint, which is as follows:

¶25

East by : Road West by : Sy.No.38, 39, 23, 42 and 46 North by : Sy.No.31, 32, 33 and 34 South by : Road

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

It is the case of the plaintiff that the Land

¶29

Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk, has granted occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiff and others on 27.02.2023 under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. It is pleaded in the plaint that since the appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the property the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiff to the entire extent of 24 acres 34 guntas. It is alleged that the defendant is interfering with the schedule property. Therefore, filed the suit.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff

¶31

submitted that by virtue of grant of occupancy rights by Land Tribunal as above stated the plaintiff is in possession over the entire extent of 24 acres 34 guntas and has placed reliance on the documents which are produced before the trial court in the suit for consideration in I.A.No.1, which are order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, revenue records, spot

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

panchanama. Therefore, submitted that the plaintiff is in possession over 24 acres 34 guntas of land.

¶35

It is the case made out by the defendant and as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant that the State Government has acquired the land bearing Sy.No.47 to the extent of 6 acres of land represented by Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'SLAO') /Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short 'KIADB') for the formation of public road called as ‘Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project’ (for short ‘BMICP) on behalf of the defendant. Therefore, the KIADB has handed over the possession to the defendant and the defendant is in possession over the 6 acres of land of Sy.No.47 and therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff is in possession over the 6 acres of land. The learned Senior Counsel has confined his submission only to the extent of 6 acres of land. Therefore, he justified the order passed by the trial court.

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Upon considering the submissions made by both sides, the following points would arise for

¶40

consideration:

¶41

(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court for grant of temporary injunction?

¶42

(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

¶43

(iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted then plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury?

¶44

RE. POINT Nos.1 TO 3:

¶45

Since all the points are interlinked, in order to

¶46

avoid repetition of facts and law they are taken up together for consideration.

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The trial court has dismissed the application I.A.No.1 on the reason that the sketch produced along with the plaint is not an original document and the correctness of the said document is to be decided during the trial. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and hence, dismissed the application – I.A.No.1. This is the only main reason assigned by the trial court without considering other documents filed by the plaintiff.

¶50

Before the trial court the plaintiff has produced certain documents, including order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, the spot inspection report, order passed on the interlocutory application by the Tribunal and revenue records. The trial court has not at all considered these documents and also the defendant has produced certain documents produced in this appeal, which would also go to show that the State Government has acquired the land in Sy.No.47 to the

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

extent of 6 acres only out of 24 acres 34 guntas through SLAO/KIADB for the purpose of BMICP project by issuing Preliminary Notification dated 31.07.2024 under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶54

After rejecting the application I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff on 27.04.2024, the State Government has acquired the land for BMICP project on 21.05.2024 and fresh Notification was issued under Section 28(4) of the Act dated 10.01.2025. A public notice issued under Section 28(6) of the Act dated 18.01.2025 and 20.01.2025 and the KIADB has handed over the possession of 6 acres of land in Sy.No.47 of Pantarapalya Village to the defendant on 03.03.2025 and possession certificate is issued. All the above documents are produced both in the trial court and before this Court. Therefore, upon considering the documents placed before the Court, the plaintiff is granted occupancy rights to the extent of 24 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.47 considering the possession of

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the plaintiff over suit schedule property. Subsequently, after dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction by the trial court, the State Government has initiated the proceedings as above explained to the extent of 6 acres and therefore, it is prima facie proved that the defendant is in possession over the land to the extent of 6 acres in Sy.No.47, Pantarapalya Village.

¶58

The trial court ought to have considered the documents placed by the plaintiff, therefore now what is revealed prima facie that by virtue of the order of granting occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule land of 18 acres 34 guntas. It is submitted that the State Government is claiming that who is in possession over the entire extent of land but State Government is not made party. By virtue of the acquisition of land for the above said project, the defendant is in possession over the 6 acres of land out of 24 acres 34 guntas in Pantarapalya Village. Though the

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

plaintiff has challenged the said acquisition proceedings of

¶62

6 acres of land by filing W.P.No.8706/2025, which is different domain to be considered in the writ proceedings, but as of now, by virtue of the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights prima facie the plaintiff is able to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the land to the extent of 18 acres 34 guntas and the defendant is in possession of 6 acres out of total 24 acres 34 guntas of Pantarapalya Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, as per documents above explained, excluding BBMP road and rocky area and for other extent the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights. Now out of total extent of 24 acres 34 guntas due to acquisition proceedings as above stated, the defendant is in possession over 6 acres of land.

¶63

It is prima facie shows that other than 6 acres of land, the plaintiff is able to show that he is in possession of the remaining extent of land of 18 Acres 34 guntas excluding BBMP road and rocky areas. Therefore,

¶64

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience to the extent of 18 Acres 34 guntas and not 6 acres of land, which is acquired for the purpose of BMICP project. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered in partly affirmative. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to an order of temporary injunction over the suit schedule property to the extent of 18 Acres 34 guntas other than 6 acres of land, which is acquired on behalf of defendant for the purpose of BMICP project.

¶67

Learned counsel for the appellant express apprehension that when the KIADB was handing over the possession of 6 acres of land to the defendant, no notice was issued to the plaintiff before demarcating 6 acres of land and therefore, whether the correct extent of 6 acres of land was handed over more, is a question to be considered. For this, learned Senior Counsel submitted that let the plaintiff be present while demarking 6 acres of land and let the Special Deputy Commissioner, KIADB (BMICP), the Special Land Acquisition Officer-1 (KIADB)

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

(BMICP) and other Officials/Engineers shall identify the said 6 acres of land and handover the same after identification of 6 acres of land. Therefore certain directions are necessary to be issued as follows:

¶72

(1) The Special Deputy Commissioner (KIADB) (BMICP), Special Land Acquisition Officer-1 (KIADB)(BMICP) shall take necessary recourse along with other officials/engineers to identify the exact 6 acres of land in presence of the plaintiff and handover the said identified land to the extent of 6-00 acres to the defendant without prejudice to the contentions raised in the writ petition.

¶73

(2) The aforesaid exercise of identifying and handing over 6-00 acres of land is subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

¶74

(3) The Special Deputy Commissioner (KIADB) (BMICP), Special Land Acquisition Officer-1 (KIADB)(BMICP) and the plaintiff shall be

¶75

12 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:40725 MFA No. 2983 of 2024

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

present at the spot on 30.10.2025 at 11.00

¶79

a.m. and shall conduct identification and demarcation of 6-00 acres of land in Sy.No.47, Pantarapalya Village, as per the Preliminary and Final Notifications.

¶80

(4) The registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Special Deputy Commissioner (KIADB) (BMICP), the Special Land Acquisition Officer-1 (KIADB)(BMICP) and other concerned officials for their necessary actions.

¶81

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed

¶82

of .

¶83

SD/-

¶84

(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶85

DR

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri. a C Ananthaswamy v. Nandhi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a C Ananthaswamy v. Nandhi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer Vs B N Chaluvegowda

Sri M L Shankar Vs Dr B C Kalmath

M/S Axis Capstone Realty LLP Vs Sri Hanumaiah M

Smt Pushpa Alias Pushpavathi Vs Sri M L Narayanaswamy

Smt. Jyoti D Bandi Vs Sri. Gulam Mustafa

Smt Mithilish Kumari @ Rekhadevi Vs Union of Inida