These appeals are directed against the order dated 07/06/2016, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.20193-20194/2016.

2. Learned single Judge has held that the acquisition proceedings have become inoperative and have stood lapsed insofar as the land bearing Sy.Nos.28/6 and 28/7, measuring 1 acre 13 guntas and 13 guntas respectively, situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli. These lands among other lands were notified for acquisition vide Preliminary Notification dated 17/11/1988 for the purpose of formation of J.P.Nagar 9th Stage Layout. This was followed by Final Notification dated 22/07/1991.

3. The main contention urged in the writ petition was based on the judgment rendered in similar case vide W.P.Nos.11022-24/2011 and other connected matters [Gautam Kamat Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bangalore Development Authority] disposed of on 08/08/2011, wherein the learned single Judge held that possession of the lands in question was indeed not taken over by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The assertion made by the BDA in the said case, to the contrary had been negatived on the ground that the mahazar drawn was not in accordance with law and that there was total inconsistency regarding the date of taking over possession as stated in the mahazar as “30/05/1998” and the one mentioned in Section 16(2) Notification as 10/05/1998. In addition, the learned single Judge has found that identity of the mahazar was not ascertainable because, the mahazar contained only signatures and not any particulars of the mahazar witnesses. Learned single Judge has also pointed out that the scheme had not been substantially implemented inasmuch as out of total extent of 241 acres 20 guntas of land acquired in Doddakallasandra Village, only 12 acres had been utilized and that at all stages, BDA was negligent and lethargic in implementing the scheme.

4. It is also borne out from the documents now made available by learned counsel for the respondents/land owner by filing a memo dated 10/09/2017 along with certain documents including note sheet dated 08/12/2016 maintained by the BDA that all lands abutting the lands in question have been either not included in the notification or denotified from the acquisition having regard to their location, construction put up therein and other relevant materials.

5. It is, thus, clear from the very record maintained by the BDA that surrounding lands have not been acquired for purposes of the scheme. It is only these lands that are the subject matter of these Appeals against which the BDA intends to proceed. Thus, this additional factor also makes it clear that the BDA apart from not taking over possession of the lands in question has not made any attempt to utilize the lands for the purpose for which they were acquired. As the BDA has excluded all other lands abutting the lands in question from acquisition, it has rendered itself incapable of making use of these lands for the purpose of the scheme or for any other scheme.

6. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the BDA is that petitioner being the subsequent purchaser cannot maintain these writ petitions. This contention is untenable in law in light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court. Reliance can be placed on the Judgement of the Apex Court in Govt. (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trust, [(2017) 6 SCC 751]. Paragraph Nos.27 and 28 of the said judgment wherein reference is made to the judgment rendered by this Court in Suryaprakash’s case in W.P.No.10286-291/2014 are usefully extracted hereunder :

“27. The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Suryaprakash v. State of Karnataka [Suryaprakash v. State of Karnataka, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8215] has considered a situation of lapse and locus standi of the subsequent purchaser to file a writ petition for a declaration on lapse, though not under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. At para 16, it has been held :

“16. … the principle that transferee of land after the publication of pre