1. These appeals are preferred by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) challenging the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge thereby holding that in view of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 particularly Section 24(2), the acquisition proceeding in respect of the land in question bearing Sy.No.80/1 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas situated at Thippasandra village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk stood lapsed. Such a finding is recorded by the learned Single Judge on the ground that neither possession of the land was taken over by the BDA nor compensation was paid to the land owner. Learned Single Judge has also further held that the Scheme for which acquisition proceedings had been initiated had lapsed because of non utilization of the land and non payment of compensation.

2. Briefly stated, facts in these cases disclose that by preliminary notification dated 21.09.1967 issued under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 followed by a final notification dated 15.07.1971, the land in question was acquired for formation of HAL III Stage Layout. The entire extent sought to be acquired was 460 acres and 11 guntas. By filing the writ petitions out of which the present appeal arises, the land owner sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed as no action had been taken by the BDA, successor of the CITB to either take possession of the land or pay compensation. It was also contended that in view of Central Act 30/2013 particularly Section 24(2), the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed.

3. In the objections filed by the BDA before the learned Single Judge, the BDA admitted the fact that possession of the land was not taken over and compensation was not paid. Though it was contended in the statement of objections without furnishing any details that award had been belatedly passed, in the course of arguments Sri.Kannur G S, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that no such award has been passed in respect of the land in question as on today. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that possession of the land has not been taken over nor any award is passed let alone paying compensation for the acquired land.

4. Indeed it is pointed out by Sri.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondents that the land in question measuring 1 acre 26 guntas was excluded while passing the award in respect of other lands on the ground that there was structure in existence and as such possession had not been taken over. As can be seen from Annexure ‘E’ produced along with the writ petition, there is an entry of supplementary proceedings thereof taken by CITB, Bangalore on 10.10.1973. This stands testimony to the fact that neither possession of the land was taken nor any award passed. It also shows that certain structures had been erected in the land in question. It thus follows that neither CITB nor Special Deputy Commissioner, BDA, Bangalore has proceeded with the acquisition proceedings and completed the same by passing award, taking over possession and paying compensation. Hence, in respect of the land in question, acquisition has been abandoned by the beneficiaries/CITB and BDA.

5. It is no longer resintegra that power conferred on any authority be exercised reasonably and reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period. An acquisition proceeding once initiated has to be completed by passing an award and paying compensation followed by taking over possession within a reasonable period. This has to be strictly followed even in the absence of any statutory limit prescribed for passing of award and completing the acquisition proceedings. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment in the case of RAMCHAND & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – 1994(1) SCC 44. The Apex Court has laid down in para 14 as under:

“14. The Parliament has recognised