The main legal point established in the judgment is that writ petitions suffering from inordinate delay and laches, and barred by principles of res judicata, may not be entitled to equitable relief under Article 226, but the court may still direct the determination and payment of just and fair compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. In this intra court appeal the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) has been allowed and then preliminary notification dated 21.03.1977 as well as final notification dated 14.05.1980 issued under the 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 in nutshell are that original respondent No.1 viz., Narayana Reddy said to be owner of an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.345 measuring 3 acres and 23 guntas situated at Banaswadi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The aforesaid land as well as several other lands were required for formation of a layout between Banaswadi Road and Hennur Road commonly known as HRBR Layout. A preliminary notification dated 21.03.1977 was issued. Thereafter, a final notification was issued on 14.05.1980.

3. Admittedly, father of original petitioner viz., Sri.D.Venkataswamy Reddy had filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.11976/1984 seeking to give effect to the resolution for de notification of the land. The said writ petition along with other connected writ petitions was dismissed by a bench of this court by an order dated 14.09.1988 and it was held as follows:

Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed with a direction to the BDA as made in paras 13 and 14 above. Whether the petitioners would be entitled to higher compensation in a matter to be considered by the authorities under Section 18 of the land acquisition Act if the petitioners make a proper representation before the authorities constituted under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and if such representations are within time.

Parties to bear their own costs.

4. It is also not in dispute, the father of the original petitioner filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.14757/1986, in which challenge was made to the validity of the notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 06.08.1986. The said order reads as under:

Heard.

The preliminary notification is issued on 21.03.1977 and final notification is issued on 12.06.1980. Large extents of the land in the neighbourhood are also acquired petition suffers from delay and laches.

W.P. rejected.

5. Thereafter, the original petitioner viz., late Narayan Reddy again filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.18196/2014, in which once again preliminary as well as final notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980 were challenged. Admittedly, the original writ petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition did not disclose the fact that his father had previously filed writ petitions viz., W.P.No.11976/1984 and W.P.No.14757/1986. The appellants also did not bring to the notice of the learned Single Judge the factum of filing two previous writ petitions by the father of the original writ petitioner.

6. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 26.02.2016 inter alia held that neither the award has been passed nor possession has been taken. It was further held that scheme was not substantially implemented as required under Section 27 of the Act within five years from the date of the final notification and therefore, the scheme has lapsed. It was further held that the contention that the writ petition filed by the original petitioner suffer from delay and laches is untenable as the scheme has lapsed. The impugned notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980 were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the original petitioner was guilty of suppression of facts and the writ petition filed by the original petitioner suffered from delay and laches. It is further submitted that the writ petition filed by the original petitioner was barred by res judicata as i