The inapplicability of Section 11-a of the Land Acquisition Act to the case.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order made by the learned single judge in a writ petition challenging the acquisition of land comprised in survey No. 150/1-p measuring 2 acres 2 guntas situate in doddigunta village, kasaba hobli, k. r. puram taluk, Bangalore district. The preliminary notification was published on 2-6-1978 in the Karnataka gazette on 29-6-1978 by the Bangalore development authority (b. d. a.) for formation of a layout for further expansion of scheme between old Madras road and banaswadi road. A final notification was issued on 30th september, 1980 which was published in the gazette on 9-10-1980. The award in respect of the acquisition of land was passed by the special land acquisition officer, b. d. a. on 3-5-1990. Three contentions were urged by the petitioner-appellant that the award having not been passed within two years from the date of the publication of the final notification, the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 11-a of the Land Acquisition Act. Secondly, the scheme has lapsed in view of Section 27 of the Bangalore development authority act inasmuch as the respondents have not completed the scheme in the period prescribed thereto. Thirdly, it was contended that the appellant has not received any notice after making the award or for delivering of possession and inasmuch as taking possession of land for formation of layout is illegal and violative of article 300-a of the constitution.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents urged before the learned single judge that there are laches on the part of the appellant in approaching the court inasmuch as final notification had been issued on 30th september, 1980 and the appellant had notice of those proceedings in the year 1981 itself. He had not approached this court for nearly 12 years and there is laches on his part. This contention on behalf of the respondents was accepted by the learned single judge who dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

( 3 ) IN this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not challenging the land acquisition as such but non-compliance of Section 27 of the act and effect of Section 11-a of Land Acquisition Act read with Section 36 of the Bangalore development authority Act, 1976. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the possession of the lands were not taken till late, a couple of months before the appellant approached this court and when there was total inaction on the part of the b. d. a. in implementing the scheme, the appellant need not approach this court earlier when there was no threat of dispossession of the land. It is therefore, contended that the learned judge has misdirected himself in dealing with this matter only with reference to laches on the part of the petitioner-appellant in challenging the acquisition of the land.

( 4 ) ON the scope of Section 27, b. d. a. Act, a division bench of this court has considered the same and explained to the effect that for the scheme to lapse under Section 27, there must be dereliction of duty or failure on the part of the authority to execute the scheme specifically within 5 years from the date of publication in the official gazette and a declaration under Section 19 (1) of the act. The two conditions to be fulfilled to attract the Provisions of this Section are, there must be failure to execute the scheme i. e. , there must be dereliction of statutory duties without justification and not a mere delay in execution of the scheme. Secondly substantial execution in the context depends on the magnitude of the scheme and the nature of the work to be executed. Though burden is upon the b. d. a. to furnish material to the court to show that there is substantial execution on the matter, it is for the appellant to place necessary material before the court to show that there has been dereliction of statutory duties and not mere delay in implementing the scheme. No such foundation