Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.HEMALEKHA
S.V. Jayamma W/o Late Kariappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
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
Failure to implement acquisition schemes within statutory timelines results in automatic lapse under law, allowing subsequent property purchasers to assert such lapses.
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....
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 ....
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....
Failure to demonstrate legal possession invalidates land acquisition; lapse of the acquisition scheme confirmed by statutory mandates.
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 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 ....
Acquisition proceedings lapse if there is no substantive implementation or legally acceptable evidence of possession by the authority.
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
