ANJU AHUJA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and had filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondent -Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA', for brevity) from interfering with the suit property. Incidentally, it is stated that though the land was subject matter of acquisition under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA Act', for brevity), the BDA had recommended the reconveyance of the land in favour of the appellant and the same had been approved by the Government. However, there was delay in reconveyance and there was a threat of dispossession by the very BDA, which had recommended such reconveyance and which had been duly approved by the State Government. The Trial Court however has dismissed the suit on the ground that notwithstanding the claim of the plaintiff that there was a resolution by the BDA recommending reconveyance and that it had been approved by the State Government, no further action having been taken, acquisition proceedings would apply in respect of the land and therefore, a civil suit was not maintainable. It is that which is under challenge in the present proceedings.

(2.) HAVING regard to the admitted circumstances that the BDA has not taken any further steps pursuant to any reconveyance that is approved by the State Government, it would be for the appellant to work out her remedies elsewhere and as rightly held by the Trial Court, a civil suit would not lie in respect of the land which is the subject matter of acquisition proceedings. This is the settled legal position, as laid down in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of STARTLAWFINDERCommissioner, Bangalore Development Authority vs. Brijesh Reddy and another (2013) 3 SCC 66ENDLAWFINDER. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Any other remedies open to the appellant however may be exercised by the appellant, if the law so permits.