Beml Employees Society Township Club Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4804 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

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, 4^TH 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

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARAPARK WEST SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU

¶14

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER NO.2, SOUTH SUB DIVISION B.D.A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU-560 070

¶19

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARAPALIKE CORPORATION OFFICES N.R.SQUARE, J.C.ROAD BENGALURU-560 002

¶20

THE BEML EMPLOYEES' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.2/1 (OLD NO.97) 2^ND FLOOR KANIKSHA HOTEL ROAD GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009

¶21

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. H.S. RAVIPRASAD

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.A. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. B.G. SANGAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APLLICAITON IA No.4/25)

¶23

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.

¶24

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CAV JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

¶30

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

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the appellant seeks to safeguard his long-standing possession and use of the CA sites pending final adjudication of the suit for permanent injunction.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

made substantial capital and recurring investments in

¶40

developing the infrastructure, including creation of

¶41

manmade lake, maintenance of a swimming pool, and development of the park and recreation club, all of which

¶42

have been serving the local residents and society members in consonance with the stated objectives of the society.

¶43

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.

¶44

The appellant also points out that property tax

¶45

for these sites is regularly paid to the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), which, it contends, is an

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

acknowledgment of the appellant's possession and use. It

¶50

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.

¶51

6. The learned counsel for the appellant disputes

¶52

the trial Court's finding that the facilities are being run for commercial gain. It is argued that although certain events

¶53

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

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

The learned counsel for the BDA further argues

¶61

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.

¶62

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

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

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.

¶66

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-

¶67

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

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.

¶70

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

¶71

the entire suit infructuous and irreversibly damage the appellant's infrastructure, goodwill and service potential.

¶72

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

¶73

11 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

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

¶77

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.

¶78

13. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this

¶79

Court finds it just and equitable to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

¶80

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

(i) The Appeal is allowed .

¶83

(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

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby set aside.

¶88

(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.

¶89

(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.

¶90

(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.

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:27572 MFA No. 4804 of 2025

¶92