Back
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
K. T. Giriyanna – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
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 compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, has also sought for declaration that the Bangalore Development Authority [the second respondent and hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA'] and the persons claiming under BDA cannot have any interest in the subject property.
2. The BDA has published Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002 under Section 17 of the BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1976 [for short, 'the BDA Act'] proposing to acquire an extent of 1532 acres 17 guntas [including the subject property] in different villages within Uttarahalli and Kengeri Hobli
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.
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.
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 ....
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
