Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition proceedings, and challenges to possession and allotment must be made within a reasonable time.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the legality of the Notifications dtd. 15/12/1984 and 28/11/1986 (Annexure-M and N) respectively, inter alia seeking cancellation of the sale deed dtd. 10/9/2018 and further, seeking appropriate direction to the respondents with regard to illegal demolition of the existing building on 'A' schedule property by the respondent No.1-BDA and such other reliefs.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner claims to be owner of the residential property bearing No.76/1, House No.15, situate at Agara village, Bengaluru South Taluk, presently situate within the limits of Agara Ward of Bruhat Bengaluru Manahagara Palike. The grievance of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition is that the respondent No.1- Bangalore Development Authority (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "BDA"), illegally renamed the petitioners 'A' schedule property by assigning new number as BDA Site No.964/A and allotted the same in favour of respondent No.3 herein by letter of allotment dtd. 7/8/2018 and the said allotment is contrary to the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites Rules), 1984 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "BDA Rules"). It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner has been illegally dispossessed by demolishing the existing building and further, the impugned notifications at Annexure-M and N are contrary to Sec. 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "BDA Act') and therefore, the petitioner has presented this petition.

3. On service of notice, respondent No.1-BDA filed detailed statement of objection contending that the BDA has framed development scheme for formation of Layout called as "Between Hosur Road and Sarjapur Road (BHSR Layout)". It is further averred that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, so also, on the ground that, petitioner being a subsequent purchaser, cannot maintain petition challenging the impugned notifications. It is further contended that the respondent-authorities have taken possession of the land in question, consequently notified under Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

4. Respondent No.3 has filed detailed statement of objection, raising preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed dtd. 10/9/2018 (Annexure-A) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and further alleged that the petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser of the land in question, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.

5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and submitted that one Pasala Reddy-notified khatedar and his legal representatives, as well as the purchasers of the Revenue Sites, have formed a Private Layout and it is further stated that Smt. R. Ramalakshmamma is not the owner of the property is question and therefore urged that she is in no way concerned with claiming compensation on behalf of the petitioner herein. It is also contended that the procedure adopted by the respondent No.1-BDA while taking possession is contrary to law and accordingly, sought for allowing the petition.

6. I have heard Sri R.S. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri K.R. Unnikrishnan M, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-BDA; Sri D.N. Najunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Badarinath, counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3; and Sri K.R. Nityananda, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondentState.

7. Sri R.S. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the following arguments:

7.1. Firstly, the procedure adopted by the respondentAuthorities while taking possession of the schedule land is contrary to law. In this regard, referring to Annexures-C to E, learned Counsel contended that the possession