1. The petitioners, who are the owners of the 9 sites (the extent of which aggregates to 2 acres) carved out of the land at Survey No.31/1B of Doddakallasandra Village, are seeking the relief of declaration that the improvement scheme, namely, J.P. Nagar 9th Stage has lapsed. The respondents issued the preliminary notification, dated 17.11.1988 proposing to acquire 1,333 acres, 34 guntas for the formation of J.P. Nagar 9th Stage layout. The final notification was issued on 22.7.1991 in respect of 1,111 acres 36% guntas implying that 233 acres were left out of the acquisition proceedings.

2. Sri Ramesh Chandra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the scheme in question has already lapsed. Out of 433 acres acquired in Doddakallasandra Village, only 12 acres of lands are utilised. He submits that under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘BDA Act’ for short), if the BDA fails to execute the scheme within 5 years from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under Section 19(1) of the said Act, the scheme shall lapse and provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative.

3. Sri Ramesh Chandra submits that under the identical circumstances in the case of R. ADIKESAVULU NAIDU AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, U.D.D. AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2011 KAR 3657 involving the acquisition of lands for J.P. Nagar 8th Stage, this Court has already quashed the acquisition proceedings and declared that the scheme has lapsed. He read out the questions formulated by this Court in the said case. They are as follows:

“104. ……………

(1) Can a scheme proposed by the BDA be permitted to be implemented even when there is a failure to execute the scheme in a substantial manner well beyond the statutory period and cana scheme survive for implementation in a very truncated manner?

(2) Can there be any other consequence of a scheme lapsing due to non-execution of a scheme in a substantial manner within the period of five years as per Section 27 of the BDA Act, other than the acquisition proceedings also automatically lapsing on the lapse of the scheme?

4. This Court answered the afore-extracted questions as follows:

"140. In the light of above discussion, answers to the questions as raised above are as under:

Question No.1: A scheme proposed by BDA if is not substantially implemented within a period of five years as is mandated under Section 27 of the BDA Act and has lapsed, there is no question of Court permitting further implementation of the scheme, if it is to the detriment of any person and such a person has sought for relief before Court; and

Question No.2: When once the scheme lapsed as per the provisions of Section 27 of the BDA Act, there cannot be any further proceedings for acquisition either, and if the subject land sought to be acquired had not vested in the State Government before lapsing of the scheme, to the extent of the lands not vested in the State Government before the lapsing of the scheme, even the acquisition proceedings lapse, as the acquisition was only for the purpose of implementation of the scheme and to the extent of land not yet vested in the State Government, the scheme having lapsed, there is no possibility of the implementation of the scheme thereafter."

5. Sri Ramesh Chandra submits that in the instant case the publication of the scheme took place on 17.11.1988 and even after two decades, there is no substantial implementation of the scheme.

6. He asserts that the petitioners continue to be in the possession of the property. He submits that the claim of the petitioners to have taken the possession of lands on 30.5.1998 is hollow. He submits that the petitioners were not even issued the notice to hand over the possession of the lands to the respondents. As it is not in dispute that the structures and trees existed on the lands, the issuance of the notice is a mandatory requirement. In support of his submission, he read ou