Here's a breakdown of the Supreme Court's decision regarding a property argument in Bengaluru, decided on December 17, 2025, by Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran.
This case is about a property argument in Kempapura Agrahara Village, Bengaluru. Initially, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) took over land in Survey Nos. 349/1 and 350/12. The land was given to Pawan Kumar Bhihani's father, but this takeover was later canceled by a court petition.
The High Court had changed a lower court's rejection of a request for a permanent order to stop certain actions, based on a BDA survey that supposedly confirmed the existence of Site No. 66 in the disputed survey numbers. Obalappa argued this survey was incorrect and not properly verified.
"The High Court made a big mistake in changing the rejection of the request," argued Obalappa.
Pawan Kumar Bhihani said his father bought the property in 1993, with a formal sale document completed in 2003. He claimed Obalappa blocked access on January 29, 2012, which led to the legal case.
The trial court found that no house was built on the site, which was a requirement for the sale document. Pawan Kumar Bhihani couldn't prove his ownership or correctly identify Site No. 66.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court, bringing back its decision to reject the request. They found the High Court made a mistake by trusting the BDA's survey, which didn't have proper proof and identification of the property.
"The properties in the survey numbers as shown in the correction not being identified, there can be no order granted."
The Supreme Court decided to allow the appeal, bringing back the trial court's decision and rejecting Pawan Kumar Bhihani's claims. This case shows how important it is to have clear property documents and to follow legal rules in arguments.
