Back
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
A. Ramamurthy – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
(Krishna S. Dixit, J.)
Petitioners claiming to be the owners of subject property, are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the acquisition of the same vide Preliminary Notification dated 2.6.1978 issued under section 17(1) followed by the Final Notification dated 30.9.1980 issued under section 19(1) of the BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1976, essentially on the ground that the acquisition process has lapsed in view of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They also have sought for voiding of the subject acquisition on the additional ground of lapsing of the scheme in terms of section 27 of the 1976 Act.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-State is represented by the learned AGA and the respondent-BDA & its Executive Engineer are represented by their Senior Panel Counsel. Similarly, the Slum Clearance Board speaks through its Panel Counsel. The allottees of the sites in question got themselves impleaded as respondents later and their Sr. Advocate also opposes the petition. Statements of Objections have been filed, resisting the Writ Petition.
The court held that subsisting interest is essential for maintaining land acquisition challenges, and statutory compliance prevails over claims of lapse unless proven otherwise.
Acquisition proceedings under the Bangalore Development Authority Act lapsed due to non-implementation, lack of possession, and failure to pay compensation, affirming abandonment in line with precede....
The court established that an acquisition may lapse if not substantially implemented within a reasonable timeframe, affirming the landowner's right to challenge ineffective acquisitions.
Failure to implement acquisition schemes within statutory timelines results in automatic lapse under law, allowing subsequent property purchasers to assert such lapses.
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 decisi....
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 ....
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 ....
Failure to demonstrate legal possession invalidates land acquisition; lapse of the acquisition scheme confirmed by statutory mandates.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
