Supreme Court upholds BDA's property acquisition, dismisses Plaintiffs' appeals.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by the Plaintiffs and allowed the appeal by the BDA, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Plaintiffs failed to establish ownership or adverse possession, and the BDA's acquisition of the properties was deemed valid. The Court held that unauthorized occupants cannot claim relief for illegal occupation. The suit filed by the Plaintiffs was dismissed, affirming the BDA's acquisition and possession of the properties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and adverse possession claims by Plaintiffs.
2. Lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
3. Alleged illegal interference and obstructions by the Defendant.
4. Validity of the acquisition and vesting of the suit schedule properties by the Defendant.
5. Plaintiffs' entitlement to relief of declaration and injunction against the Defendant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Adverse Possession Claims by Plaintiffs:
The Plaintiffs claimed ownership over the suit schedule properties by inheritance and purchase, and also claimed adverse possession. The High Court found that the Plaintiffs could not simultaneously claim ownership and adverse possession. The Supreme Court emphasized that adverse possession requires peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile possession, which was not established by the Plaintiffs. The Court cited Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India and other cases to outline the requirements for adverse possession, which the Plaintiffs failed to meet.

2. Lawful Possession and Enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties:
The Trial Court initially found in favor of the Plaintiffs, affirming their lawful possession. However, the High Court overturned this, noting that the properties were vacant land with demolished structures, thus the Plaintiffs could not claim settled possession. The Supreme Court agreed, referencing John B. James v. Bangalore Development Authority, which states that settled possession cannot be claimed over vacant land.

3. Alleged Illegal Interference and Obstructions by the Defendant:
The Plaintiffs alleged illegal interference by the Defendant-BDA. The High Court found that the structures on the properties were demolished, indicating that the Plaintiffs were not in possession at the time of the suit. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that an injunction could not be granted to protect possession that was not lawful or established.

4. Validity of the Acquisition and Vesting of the Suit Schedule Properties by the Defendant:
The BDA claimed that the properties were acquired and vested in it free from all encumbrances. The Supreme Court supported this, citing U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd. and other cases, which establish that any sale post-notification of acquisition is void. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs had not completed the statutory period for adverse possession and that possession was taken by drawing a Panchnama, a permissible mode of taking possession.

5. Plaintiffs' Entitlement to Relief of Declaration and Injunction Against the Defendant:
The Trial Court had granted relief to the Plaintiffs, but the High Court reversed this for all but one Plaintiff. The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiffs did not establish adverse possession or lawful possession, thus they were not entitled to the relief sought. The Court emphasized that unauthorized occupants cannot claim relief to perpetuate illegal occupation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by the Plaintiffs (SLP (C) No. 38601 of 2012 and SLP (C) Nos. 12013-12015 of 2013) and allowed the appeal by the BDA (SLP (C) No. 12016 of 2013), setting aside the High Court's judgment that had dismissed BDA's RFA No. 911 of 2002. The suit filed by the Plaintiff in RFA No. 911 of 2002 was dismissed, affirming the BDA's acquisition and possession of the properties.

---