The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability and interpretation of the provisions of the BDA Act, specifically Section 27 and 36, in determining the lapse of the Scheme and land acquisition.

Anand Byrareddy, J.

1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Aditya Sondhi, appearing for learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the BDA.

2. The facts of the case are that the father of petitioner No. 1, Erappa, son of Basappa, was the khatedar in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 81/2 of Arekere village, totally measuring 01 acre 26 guntas and that he is said to have inherited the same and was in settled possession. After the death of Erappa, petitioner No. 1, who had succeeded to the property and petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, who are the children of petitioner No. 1, are in joint occupation of the land. The RTC reflects the name of the petitioner from the year 1973-74 onwards till the date of the petition and continue to show the land as held by the father of petitioner No. 1.

3. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in order to form a layout under a Scheme known as "Byrasandra - Tavarekere - Madivala VI Stage" had issued a notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity) dated 08.09.1987 proposing to acquire an extent of 805 Acres of land comprising of two villages, namely, Arekere and Hulimavu and petitioner's land was notified at Sl. No. 358 of the said notification at Annexure 'A'. The final notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act at Annexure 'B' was issued on 28.07.1990, whereby the extent of land proposed to be acquired was reduced to 562.34 acres. The large extent of over 240 acres was left out of the acquisition. However, the petitioner's land was included in the final notification.

4. Erappa is said to have died in the year 1982, but the RTC continue to reflect his name and the petitioners have continued to be in physical possession of the land. It is the grievance of petitioners that they were not heard in the process of notifying the lands and that they had put up certain small structure over the land in question since the year 1986 and since there was interference with their possession by the BDA, they had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 18839/1994 before this Court and there was an interim order staying dispossession. The petition, however, was dismissed ultimately on the ground of delay and laches. That petition was filed only on the ground that no notice was issued to them and that the notifications had been issued by the BDA without affording them an opportunity of hearing. It is the case of the petitioners that no further steps had been taken by the BDA for a long time though it is stated that possession was taken of the land in question on 22.03.1994 and that proceedings had been drawn up in that regard as per the mahazar at Annexure 'E', which is vehemently denied by the petitioners and it is claimed that the said mahazar is a nebulous document, which is mechanically prepared to reflect such taking over of physical possession and in fact, petitioners have continued to be in possession and that there are buildings put up on the said land under their occupation and hence, the mahazar cannot be accepted at all. From a plain examination of the mahazar, it is evident that it is a document, which lacks material particulars and cannot be relied upon as a document evidencing taking over of possession in the manner known to law and therefore, it is contended that any further steps taken by the BDA on the premise that the actual physical possession of the land in question has been taken after passing of an award is wholly without basis and certainly reliance can be placed on the material documents that are cited in support of such a contention.

5. It is pointed out further that insofar as the acquisition proceeding itself is concerned, even according to the material produced by the BDA itself, out of the total extent of 388 acres 98 guntas of land in Hulimavu village and 174 acres 25 guntas of land in Arakere village, which were originally notified, the admitted status of development of