Petitioner has sought a declaration that the scheme of acquisition and the impugned notification dated 14-05-1980 bearing No.HUD.49/MNJ.78 in respect of Sy.No.292 of Banaswadi village, Bangalore-560043 (Annexure-A) has lapsed insofar as the schedule property is concerned. The schedule property is detailed as under:

SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All the piece and parcel of property bearing No.16 (new No.2CC 601), 2nd ‘C’ Cross, 6th Main, H.R.B.R. 2nd Block, BDA Layout unacquired portion of survey No.292 of Banaswadi village, BBMP ward No.88, Bangalore-560 043 measuring 26’ x 50’ in all measuring 1300 sq.ft. bounded on:

East by :: 2CC 603

West by :: 6th Main Road

North by :: 2DC 602

South by :: 2nd ‘C’ Cross

2. According to the petitioner, in respect of Banaswadi Scheme, Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA’) had issued preliminary notification on 05-05-1977 under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). Thereafter, declaration and final notification dated 14-05-1980 was issued under Section 19(1) of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner’s mother late C.Mary had purchased the suit schedule property in the year 2006, to be precise on 02-09-2006 under a registered sale deed. Thereafter, she had filed W.P.No.8199/2007 before this Court assailing the public auction of site Nos.2CC-601 and 2DC-602 of HRBR Layout, Main, ‘C’ and ‘D’ Cross, Bangalore43. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 24-07-2007. Thereafter, she filed W.A.No.1675/2007. The Division Bench also dismissed the said writ appeal.

4. Petitioner’s counsel further submits that legal representatives of late C. Mary including the petitioner herein had preferred O.S.No.8193/2013 before the City Civil Court seeking relief of permanent injunction against the Bangalore Development Authority and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on the premise that the plaintiffs are in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property and the schedule property herein are one and the same. In the said suit, the BDA has filed an application under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC contending that the said suit is not maintainable. In the circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that acquisition in respect of the schedule property has lapsed. The said declaration is sought under Section 27 of the BDA Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court has jurisdiction to grant such a declaration and as the Civil Court does not have such a jurisdiction to do so. In the circumstances, petitioner has sought such a declaration.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 on advance notice submits that the writ petition is highly belated. The acquisition notifications are of the year 1977 and 1980. But, petitioner has approached this court in November 2017 seeking such a declaration after not being able to seek order of temporary injunction in O.S.No.8193/2013. That this writ petition has been filed so as to over come the lacuna in the civil suit; the same is not maintainable. In the circumstances, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the writ petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the petitioner herein is one of the legal representatives of Late C. Mary. The latter had purchased the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 02-09-2006. It is also stated that the schedule property is in Sy.No.292 of Banaswadi village. It is an admitted fact that Sy.No.292 was acquired under Notifications dated 05-05-1077 and 14-05-1980 which are preliminary and final notifications issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) of the BDA Act respectively. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that said notifications have not been acted upon insofar as sche