Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

No Relief for Illegal Constructions on Acquired Land - Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Temporary Injunction in BDA Property Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has overturned a Trial Court's decision that granted a temporary injunction to prevent the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) from demolishing structures on an acquired property. The Court's decision highlights the legal complexities involved in property acquisition and the subsequent developments on such land.

The legal crux of the judgment revolved around the maintainability of a civil suit for an injunction concerning property acquired by the BDA. The Court meticulously examined the jurisdiction of civil courts in land acquisition disputes and the validity of constructions made post-acquisition.

The respondent, Smt. B.L. Ramadevi, claimed ownership of the property in question and sought a permanent injunction to prevent demolition by the BDA. The property had been acquired by the BDA for layout formation. Despite the acquisition, the respondent developed structures on the property, leading to a legal tussle over its ownership and the legality of such developments.

The Court observed, "When the suit itself is not maintainable, the question of granting the interim order does not arise, that too in a suit for permanent injunction." It emphasized that acquisition proceedings had attained finality and any construction post-acquisition was at the risk of the respondent. The Court pointed out, "The subsequent construction after the acquisition of the property by the BDA is the risk of the respondent and the same cannot be protected."

The High Court dismissed the application for a temporary injunction, holding that the civil suit for a permanent injunction against the BDA was not maintainable. It underscored that the respondent's construction could not be legally upheld given the undisputed acquisition of the property by the BDA.

The Court directed that any grievances related to the acquisition and management of the disputed property should be addressed through appropriate legal channels, and not through civil suits seeking injunctions.

Date of Decision: March 7th, 2024.                                                  

The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority v. Smt. B.L. Ramadev 

Similar News