Point of Law: Lapsing of Scheme in my considered opinion would invalidate designation of property as a civic amenity and all further actions taken in connection thereto, if Scheme is not implemented in respect of that particular land.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to declare that the acquisition covered under the Preliminary notification issued on 8.9.1987 in No. BDA/ALAO/5/18/87-88 issued by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-C and the final notification dated 28.7.1990 in No.HUD/231/MNX/90 as per Annexure-D issued by the 2nd respondent in related to lands of these petitioners are concerned, is lapsed in view of section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 for failure to implement the Schedule Substantially.

b. Issue an appropriate writ or order declaring that in view of Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976, Section 36 of the said Act is inapplicable much less by virtue of Section 24[2] of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 [Central Act No. 30 of 2013] the acquisition is deemed to have been passed even as against the respondent State is concerned.

c. Issue an appropriate writ or order directing the respondents not to meddle with the property right of the petitioners except in accordance with law contemplated under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

d. Pass any appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem it fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case and allow this writ petition with cost, in the ends of justice and equity.

2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of Sy.No.80/1 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas situated at Hulimavu Village, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.

3. The petitioners contend that the said land was one among various lands acquired for the formation of Byrasandra, Tavarekere and Madivala Layout (BTM Layout) under the Preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987 and Final Notification dated 28.07.1990. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs on the ground that the Scheme for which the lands have been acquired has lapsed and therefore, the aforesaid reliefs are required to be granted.

4. It is stated that the Preliminary Notification was issued to an extent of 805 acres 21 guntas of land consisting of 524 acres 9 guntas from Hulimavu Village and 231 acres 21 guntas from Arekere Village. Whereas the Final Notification was issued for 388 acres 9 guntas from Hulimavu Village and 174 acres 25 guntas from Arekere Village.

5. The petitioners’ forefathers had filed W.P.No.19277/1990 challenging the acquisition which came to be disposed on 19.09.1996 reserving liberty to approach Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) by submitting a suitable representation. In the event of any constructions having been made in the land belonging to them, which was acquired, the BDA was directed to consider the application for allotment of the area in favour of the petitioners on the basis of price fixed in respect of other similar sites or lands.

6. The BDA was directed not to take steps to demolish the existing buildings till it considers and disposes of the representations of the land owners. Though such representation was made, it was not considered.

7. The BDA initiated proceedings under Section 33(2) of Bangalore Development Authority Act (for short, ‘BDA Act’) and an order was passed by the Executive Engineer of the BDA directing the demolition of construction on the land in question on the ground that the construction is unauthorized which is contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19277/1990. Hence, the petitioners filed another W.P.No.19877/2007 contending that since for more than 17 years, the petitioners having been in possession, occupation and enjoyment of the property, the land not having been utilized by the BDA, the scheme for which the above land was acquired had lapsed. Further, a direction was sought to restrain the BDA and its officers from interfering with the possession of the petitioners.

8. This Court taking into accoun