MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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