Failure to implement acquisition schemes within statutory timelines results in automatic lapse under law, allowing subsequent property purchasers to assert such lapses.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a declaration that the preliminary notification dated 03.01.1977 and final declaration dated 02.08.1978 issued for the formation of RMV II stage layout under Sections 17 (1) and 19 (1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘BDA Act’ for short), have lapsed in so far as the petition schedule property is concerned, on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3-Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA’) have failed to execute the scheme within the statutory period as mandated under Section 27 of the BDA Act and that the petitioners continue to remain in actual physical and uninterrupted possession of the schedule property. The petitioners also seek a declaration that acquisition has further lapsed under Section 24 of Act 30/2013 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act 2013’ for short) as neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation is paid.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The land bearing Survey No. 24/3 of Nagashetty Halli Village measuring 20 guntas was notified for acquisition under the preliminary notification dated 03.01.1977 followed by the final notification dated 02.08.1978 for the formation of RMV II stage layout. Out of 20 guntas, 10 guntas are stated to have been utilized for formation of road, whereas the remaining 10 guntas, out of which petition schedule property measuring 10,070 square feet is carved out, remained untouched and undeveloped. The petitioners in W.P.11782/2024 purchased the said property under the registered sale deed dated 01.09.2017 from their vendors who have already challenged the very same notification in WP No. 58292 of 2014.

3. The petitioners assert continuous possession of schedule property and claim that no development whatsoever has been undertaken by the BDA in respect of their land for nearly 45 years. Several coordinate Bench of this Court, in the cases of Sri Srinath Hegde and Others vs. BDA and Another , W.P. Nos. 16074-16110/2010 and connected matters, dated 2.9.2011, M. Venkatesh and Another vs BDA and Another , W.P. Nos. 2206-2208/2013 dated 23.01.2014 and Janardhan vs. State of Karnataka and Others , W.P. No. 24709 of 2017 dated 15.12.2023 have already held that RMV II stage scheme was not substantially implemented and had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act.

Contentions of the petitioners

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing for the petitioners in W.P. 58292/2014 and for respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in W.P. 11782/2024 submits that the BDA has failed to execute the scheme within 5 years from the date of final notification as required under Section 27 of the BDA Act. No development work has been carried out in respect of the petition schedule property which demonstrates complete non-implementation. It is further submitted that the mahazar relied upon by the BDA is defective, unsigned and not supported by evidence. Further it is submitted that no compensation has been paid, tendered or validly deposited in Court in favour of the petitioners or their vendors. It is further submitted that since neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid, the acquisition independently lapse under Section 24(2), that the co-ordinate benches have already declared the same scheme has lapsed and the petitioners land stands on the same footing. It is contended that the petitioners being bona fide purchasers in possession have locus to challenge the acquisition.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the writ petitions have to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as the present petitions are filed afte