The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of statutory sanction under Sec. 18(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and the impact of previous court decisions on similar cases.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the acquisition proceedings of the lands in question on several grounds.

2. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioners argues that it has been a settled position of law that if the statutory sanction has not been obtained at the hands of the Government under Sec. 18(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, the acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained; that on the very same ground, relief has been granted to other land owners by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.16827-16834/1994 etc., between YELLAPPA & OTHERS vs. STATE & OTHERS, disposed off on 7/10/1996; if the Scheme has not been implemented within the statutory period, the acquisition would lapse and land should revert to it's owners; the acquisition in question is not in public interest; the BDA has recommended for denotification.

3. After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through the learned AGA; the BDA is represented by its learned Panel Advocate; the Housing Society is represented by its own learned counsel. Both the BDA & the Society have filed their Statements of Objections resisting the Writ Petition. Both the learned AGA and the BDA Panel Counsel oppose the Petition making submission in justification of the acquisition. They plead about delay & laches in the filing of Petition. They controvert Petitioners' submissions and seek dismissal of Petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

A) AS TO DELAY and LACHES:

(i) The proceedings for acquisition commenced vide Preliminary Notification dtd. 19/1/1989 issued under Ss. 17(1) and (3) of the 1976 Act; the Final Notification was issued under Sec. 19(1) on 19/1/1994. The Government granted the so called 'sanction' on 10/8/1989 which is held to be no sanction by the Coordinate Bench in YELLAPPA case, supra. Once the proceedings are a nullity, ordinarily, there is no limitation for laying a challenge to the same; the question of laches also does not much arise since admittedly, no development has taken place in the subject land which is said to be in the encroachment of the Respondent - Society. A truncated mahazar has been drawn with the signatures of a few villagers without mentioning their material particulars. Admittedly, the Petitioners have not received the compensation although the BDA has deposited the same in the court. After such a deposit, whether any notice was issued to the Petitioners is also not forthcoming from the records.

(ii) It is stated at the Bar that the subject land has been in the encroachment of the Respondent - Housing Society and that the BDA has lodged a Police complaint in that regard, the subject acquisition having not been made for the benefit of the said Society. The BDA has written to the Government for the dropping of acquisition stating that this land is not required for the formation of layout in question. Admittedly, no layout has been formed nor any third party interest is created in respect of the land. Therefore, the Petitioners are more than justified in contending that delay and laches be condoned and the land be restored to them.

(iii) The vehement submission of learned Panel Counsel for the BDA that the challenge to the acquisition is highly belated, does not merit acceptance for other reasons too: firstly, the Right to Property is constitutionally guaranteed to the citizens under Article 300A. The statutory sanction is held to be no sanction by a Coordinate Bench in respect of notified lands belonging to others, infra. The Apex Court in SUKH DUTT RATRA and ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HP and OTHERS (2022) 7 SCC 508 at paragraph 17 and 18 has observed as under:

"When seen holistically, it is apparent that the State's actions, or lack thereof, have in fact compounded the injustice meted out to the appellants and compel