The court clarified the conditions for the lapse of a proceeding under Sec. 27 of the Act and emphasized the importance of considering inordinate delay and finality of acquisition proceedings before quashing notifications.

JUDGMENT :

1. This intra court appeal has been filed against order dtd. 31/3/2016 by which writ petition preferred by respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the owners' for short) has been allowed and the proceeding initiated by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the authority' for short) for acquisition of land in question under Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) have been quashed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that one late Sri.M.Krishnappa was the original owner of land bearing Sy.No. 225/1 measuring 2.25 acres of Banasawadi Village, K.R.Pura, Hobli, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question' for short). The authority issued a preliminary notification dated 03. 11.1977 under Sec. 17 of the Act for acquisition of the aforesaid land for Banasawadi Scheme between old madras Road and Banasawadi Road (hereinafter referred to as 'the OMBR Layout' for short). Thereafter, a final notification dtd. 13/11/1980 under Sec. 19 of the Act was issued. An award was passed on 6/10/1982 and the possession of the land in question was taken by preparing a panchanama on 22/10/1982.

3. The original owner of the land viz., M.Krishnappa filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No. 41625/1982, in which challenge was made to the proceeding for acquisition. On 25/7/1983, a notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued stating that the possession of the land in question has already been taken. The aforesaid writ petition filed by late M.Krishnappa was dismissed for non prosecution on 31/1/1982.

4. Thereafter, sons of M.Krishnappa viz., Sri.K.Muniraju and Sri.K.Srinivasa filed another writ petition on 16/2/1995 in which prayer for regularization of one of the house situate on the land in question was made. In the said writ petition, there was neither any mention of previous writ petition viz., W.P.No. 4751/1995 which was dismissed for non prosecution nor the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act were challenged. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dtd. 27/3/1997 and it was inter alia held that the petitioners of the said writ petition cannot seek regularization with regard to unauthorized structure on the land in question. It was further held that petitioners in the said writ petition cannot, seek regularization in respect of land measuring 2 acres and 21 guntas, on the ground that there is a small unauthorized structure on the land in question. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

5. Thereafter, on 16/1/2016, sons of Late M.Krishnappa and his daughter in law after a period of 34 years from the date of passing of the award filed the writ petition viz., W.P.No. 916/2016. In the writ petition, a prayer was sought that preliminary notification dtd. 3/11/1977 and final notification dtd. 13/11/1980 issued under Sec. 17 and 19 of the Act respectively issued for formation of OMBR Layout have lapsed under Sec. 27 of the Act. The petitioner also sought a declaration that preliminary as well as final notifications dtd. 3/11/1977 and 13/11/1980 for formation of OMBR Layout have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act' for short). The learned Single Judge by an order dtd. 31/3/2016 inter alia held that physical possession of the land in question has not been taken. Therefore, the rigor of Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act would apply and the proceeding for acquisition insofar as it pertains to land held by the owners was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, the Authority has filed this appeal.

6. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that Sec. 24(2) of 2013 Act does not apply to the proceeding initiated under the Act. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the writ petit