Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.S. KAMAL, J
Chennamma W/o Late Muniyappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Petitioners claiming to be the owners of land in Sy.No.21/2 admeasuring 2 acres 8 guntas situated at Kothnur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, (hereinafter referred to as “ the Subject Land”) are before this Court seeking following reliefs:
"I. Call for the entire records from the respondent:
II. Issue an appropriate order, writ declaring the scheme J.P. Nagar 8th Phase Bangalore envisaged under preliminary Notification bearing No.BDA/SLAO/A6/PR/229/87-88 dated 23.03.1988 as per Annexure-A and Final Notification bearing No. HUD/292/MNX/93, dated 19.10.1994 as per Annexure-B issued by the 1st respondent, so far as the property of the petitioner, applying the provisions of section 27 of BDA Act be declared as lapsed.
ii(a) Declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of BDA Act 1976 for the JP Nagar, 8th stage as lapsed on account of failure to implement the same within 5 years as contemplated under section 27 and consequently there is no vesting of land.
III. Grant such other relief, as deemed fit, by this Hon'ble Court in facts and circumstances of the case, including the award of the costs of the petition, in the interest of justic
The court confirmed that land acquisition remains valid despite claims of abandonment if possession was taken and the scheme implemented as per law.
Failure to demonstrate legal possession invalidates land acquisition; lapse of the acquisition scheme confirmed by statutory mandates.
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 held that subsisting interest is essential for maintaining land acquisition challenges, and statutory compliance prevails over claims of lapse unless proven otherwise.
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.
The court ruled that land acquisition notifications become invalid once the related scheme is held to have lapsed or been abandoned.
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....
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....
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
