Sri. Venkatesh Vs Smt. H. P. Latha

SMT. H. P. LATHA D/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, W/O M HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.544, 3RD CROSS, IST MAIN, VINAYAKA EXTENSION, KARASAVADI ROAD, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020

¶17

ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:43027 WP No. 27955 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ANNEXURE-A-COMMON ORDER I.A.NO.2, DATED.06.09.2025, REFUSING TO GRANT EXPARTE INTERIM ORDER IN I.A.NO.2, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.1674/2025, PENDING IN 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, BY ALLOWING WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

This Court does not find the need to issue

¶29

notice. Though notice was ordered, the same is not

¶30

accepted or no appearance is made by the respondentsdefendants before the Trial Court.

¶31

The petitioner is none other than the plaintiff in

¶32

the original suit. He filed suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs. He has specifically sought to declare

¶33

the Sale Deed dated 22.11.2010 registered in the Office of

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:43027 WP No. 27955 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, is to be declared as null and void and not binding on the him.

¶38

Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed two interlocutory applications. I.A. No.1/2025 filed under Section 64(2) of the BDA Act, came to be allowed and consequently, the statutory notice to defendants Nos.2 and 3, who are the statutory bodies came to be dispensed. However, IA No.2/2025 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 from receiving compensation amount from defendant Nos.2 and 3, notice was ordered. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶39

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that he acquired the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No.146/1 measuring 39 guntas situated at Beemanakuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 10.04.2006 from his vendors. The vendors of the plaintiff

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:43027 WP No. 27955 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

had acquired the same by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated 20.04.2002. After registration of the Sale Deed, the mutation and revenue entries were changed and transferred in the name of the petitioner.

¶44

This being the state of affairs, the husband of defendant No.1, through a broker and with the involvement of defendant Nos.2 and 3, got a Sale Deed registered in favour of defendant No.1 on 22.11.2010, which is illegal and void, as the same was executed after the final notification was issued by the respondents-BDA on 28.02.2010.

¶45

It is also contented that the suit schedule properties were acquired by the BDA through a Preliminary Notification on 21.05.2008 and a Final Notification on 28.02.2010. However, the said acquisition proceedings

¶46

were challenged before the Court and the petition came to be allowed. The said order was again challenged by the defendants Nos.2 and 3 and the Division Bench of this

¶47

Court initially granted a stay of the proceedings and

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:43027 WP No. 27955 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

thereafter, the writ appeal came to be allowed and thereby, the notifications were upheld.

¶52

Therefore, now what remains is the payment of compensation to the persons entitled to receive the same in accordance to the Notification issued. It is the claim

¶53

made by the petitioner-plaintiff that he is entitled to receive the compensation, as the Sale Deed executed in favour of defendant No.1 is void and illegal, and this aspect of the matter has to be decided. However, in the meanwhile if the compensation amount is disbursed to defendant No.1, the very purpose of filing the suit would be frustrated and nothing would survive in the suit proceedings if an interim order is not granted. Therefore,

¶54

it would cause irreparable injury and hardship to the plaintiff, and any delay in granting an interim order or even service of notice to the other side would cause further hardship and inconvenience. As a prima facie case is made out and damage to property would not be compensatable if disbursed in favour of defendant No.1,

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:43027 WP No. 27955 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

the plaintiff would be put to irreparable injury and hardship more than the defendant No.1. Therefore, he filed the subject application before the Trial Court.

¶59

The Trial Court did not agree with the plaintiff

¶60

on the issuance of any ad-interim ex-parte order, however, it ordered issuance of notice, which is impugned herein.

¶61

Having heard learned counsel for the petitionerplaintiff and having perused the affidavit, the plaint averments and the narration of facts, this Court is of the view that if an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining defendants Nos.2 and 3 from disbursing the compensation amount or allotting the site in favour of defendant No.1 is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer severe hardship. Therefore, prima facie case is made out

¶62

by the plaintiff for grant of an ad-interim order and the balance of convenience lies in his favour. So also, much hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if an ad-interim

¶63

order is not granted at this stage prior to issuance of

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:43027 WP No. 27955 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

notice to the defendants, which aspect the Trial Court has

¶68

not noticed under the circumstances.

¶69

I pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby restrained from disbursing compensation amount or by granting any site in lieu thereof in favour of respondent No.1/defendant No.1, till the next date of hearing. I.A.No.2/2025 is partly allowed .

¶72

The petitioner to comply with Order under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC before this Court.

¶73

The Trial Court is at liberty to decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, after service of notice to the defendants independently, without being influenced by any of the opinion expressed by this Court, as this Court has passed the order only with regard to the issuance of ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction.

¶74