Civil Court Has No Jurisdiction To Grant Declaration Or Bare Injunction On Invalidity Of Procedure Under Land Acquisition Act: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court reiterated that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant a declaration or bare injunction on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act.

In that context, the Bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed that, "Civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction on invalidity of procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act, only right available to aggrieved person is to approach High Court under Article 226 and Supreme Court under Article 136 of Constitution with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power".

Counsel Murugesh V Charati appeared for the appellant, while Counsel Thimmegouda N appeared for the respondent.

The appellant filed a miscellaneous first appeal challenging the granting of an interim injunction by the Trial Court. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, claiming ownership of a property in Banaswadi, Bangalore, which her deceased husband had acquired through a partition decree. The defendant, Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), contested the suit, asserting that the property had been acquired for layout formation.

The Trial Court found that while there were acquisition proceedings for the property, it was unclear whether the scheme had been implemented by the BDA. The plaintiff had also challenged the acquisition in a writ petition, and a status-quo order had been granted. Based on these factors, the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and granted the interim injunction.

The appellant argued that the suit itself was not maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC, as the property had been acquired by the BDA. Additionally, recent construction on the property was deemed illegal by the appellant.

The respondent contended that the plaintiff was in settled possession of the property and that the BDA could not demolish the structures. They also argued that the acquisition had been challenged in court, and the matter was still pending.

The High Court held that the Civil suit filed by plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 an 2 i.e., BDA, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property was not maintainable.

It was observed that, "suit for bare injunction cannot be maintained, the Trial Court committed an error in exercising its discretion in favour of the plaintiff, even though the suit itself is not maintainable. The observation made by the Trial Court is erroneous and the Trial Court ought not to have exercised the discretion in favour of the respondent, when the property was acquired and no dispute with regard to the acquisition is concerned... even construction put up by the respondent is subsequent to the acquisition and the act of the respondent/plaintiff cannot be protected and the photographs which have been produced clearly disclose that though school building was constructed long back, but recently shopping complex is also constructed and the photographs which have been produced before the Court depicts that the same is an unauthorized construction and taking advantage of pendency of the writ petition, the construction is completed. Hence, such construction cannot be protected by exercising the discretion granting an order of temporary injunction."

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Appearances:

Appellant: Counsel Murugresh V Charati

Respondent: Counsel Thimmegouda N

Cause Title: The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority vs BL Ramadevi

Click here to read/download the Judgment