The Supreme Court on Tuesday stepped into a long-running Bengaluru land dispute involving a Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) layout, pulling back an injunction that had briefly favoured private allottees. The bench made it clear that courts cannot protect possession when even the identity of the land itself remains uncertain. The matter, argued at some length, revolved around Site No. 66 and shifting survey numbers that raised more questions than answers in the courtroom.
Background
The case traces its roots to the early 1990s. The respondents’ father had purchased a site in a BDA auction in 1993, following which an agreement and later a sale deed were executed. The land was originally linked to Survey Nos. 349/1 and 350/12 in Kempapura Agrahara village, north Bengaluru.
However, there was a twist. The acquisition itself was later struck down by the High Court in a separate writ petition filed by the appellants, who traced their ownership to ancestral land. Years after the sale deed, and after disputes had already landed in court, the BDA executed a rectification deed in 2012, changing the survey numbers to 350/9, 350/10 and 350/11. Based on this, the respondents sought a permanent injunction to stop the appellants from interfering with the property.
The trial court was not convinced and dismissed the suit. The High Court reversed that decision, relying mainly on a survey said to have been conducted by the BDA. That reversal brought the appellants to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran was visibly sceptical of the shifting stand taken by the plaintiffs. The bench noted that an earlier suit had already been filed by the respondents concerning the same site but with different survey numbers, and no permission was taken to file a fresh one after changing those details.
“The respondents could not even clearly identify Site No. 66 on the ground,” the bench observed, pointing out that the rectification deed came nearly twenty years after the original allotment and did not explain why such a major error occurred in the first place.
The court also highlighted that the allotment agreement required construction of a house within two years, a condition that was never fulfilled. Even by 2012, when the injunction suit was filed, there was no residential building on the site.
On the High Court’s reliance on the BDA survey, the bench was blunt. It noted that the alleged survey report had no seal, no clear signature, and its author was never examined in court. “Production of a document is not proof,” the judgment remarked, adding that the survey, if conducted at all, was done behind the appellants’ back and could not be the basis for granting an injunction.
Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s order dismissing the suit. It held that the respondents failed to prove title or even properly identify the land they claimed. With the acquisition itself having been quashed earlier, and the rectification deed lacking credibility, the court found no legal ground to protect possession. The appeal was allowed, bringing the injunction battle to an end at the trial court stage.
Case Title: Obalappa and Others vs Pawan Kumar Bhihani and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14966 of 2025
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Permanent Injunction / Property Dispute)
Decision Date: December 17, 2025