Back
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
K. T. Giriyanna – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership claim and acquisition details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prior court directions on land acquisitions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. ongoing disputes over land possession. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. bda's acquisition procedures. (Para 8) |
| 5. private respondents' claims in ongoing proceedings. (Para 9) |
| 6. dispute over possession of subject property. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 7. court's analysis of possession and rights. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. pending forest land determination and implications. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 9. petition dismissed with pending applications rejected. (Para 20) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, who asserts the ownership of land measuring 10 acres 07 guntas in Sy.Nos.70 and 71 of Turahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [the subject property], has filed this petition for declaration that the 'Further Extension of Banashankari VI Stage Scheme' insofar as the subject property stands lapsed, and for quashing the following insofar as the subject property:
[b] the Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 [Annexure-B].
[c] the Awards dated 10.11.2003 and 10.11.2003 [Annexures-C1 and C2].
The petitioner, while claiming
The court upheld the validity of ongoing acquisition notifications despite contested claims of possession, establishing that evidence of prior development and forest designations does not nullify acq....
Failure to demonstrate legal possession invalidates land acquisition; lapse of the acquisition scheme confirmed by statutory mandates.
Notice under Section 35(3) IFA for MPFA vesting must be by authorised officer, served on true owner pre- or proximately to appointed day; invalid notice fails strict compliance, preventing land class....
The court established that failure to notify landowners and to take possession in accordance with the law invalidates the land acquisition process.
A land acquisition scheme lapses under Section 27 of the BDA Act due to non-implementation within five years, and possession claimed via cyclostyle mahazar is invalid and insufficient for legal owner....
The court confirmed that land acquisition remains valid despite claims of abandonment if possession was taken and the scheme implemented as per law.
Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition proceedings, and challenges to possession and allotment must be made within a reasonable time.
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
