The court held that subsisting interest is essential for maintaining land acquisition challenges, and statutory compliance prevails over claims of lapse unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

D.K. SINGH, J.

1. These two writ appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 08.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.10331/2013 (LA-BDA).

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for sake of convenience.

3. The petitioners' had filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands of the petitioners under the Preliminary Notification bearing No.BDA/SLAO/A4-PR:194/2002-03 dated 07.11.2002 published in the Official Gazette dated 21.11.2002, as Illegal and void ab initio and further that the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands on the basis of the Final Notification bearing No.UDD/750/LAQ:2003 dated 09.09.2003 published in the Official Gazette on 10.09.2003 or on the basis of the Notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, bearing No.BDA/SLAO/A5/PR/45/2006-07 dated 29.05.2007, should not be disturbed on account of lapsing of the scheme.

4. Petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of the following lands :-

The Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002 was notifying 1,532 acres and 17 guntas of Lands comprised in 8 Villages viz., Vajrahalli, Hosahalli, Uttarahalli Manevartekaval, Bada Manevartekaval, Raghuvanahalli, Talaghattapura, Turahalli and Gubbalala for formation of "Further Extension of Banashankari VI Stage by linking existing VI Stage Layout through Kanakapura - Bangalore Main Road."

5. However, the Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 was notified for 750 acres including 142 acres and 1 gunta of Gubbalala Village. In the notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, only 395 acres 37 guntas of lands including 39 acres 10 guntas of Gubbalala Village, was notified.

6. The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA') in its statement of objections filed before the learned Single Judge stated that in respect of 657 acres 15 guntas of land, covered under Preliminary Notification, a resolution was passed permitting landowners to pay betterment charges and left out such lands from final notification. The petitioners have alleged that they were discriminated, while de-notifying the lands for being left out of acquisition by receiving betterment charges, inasmuch as their lands were not notified for receiving the betterment charges. The contention before the learned Single Judge was that if the scheme was not implemented within the statutory limit of 5 years from the date of the final notification, the scheme had lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act.

7. The learned Single Judge having considered the submissions, framed the following issues for determination in the writ petition:

a. Whether petitioners would have locus standi or subsisting interest to maintain the petition?

b. Whether the writ petition would be barred by the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata ?

c. Whether taking possession of the lands by the BDA, by drawing mahazar would be lawful?

d. Whether the writ petition suffers from delay and laches?

8. The learned Single Judge held that the claim of the petitioners was based on the fact that the notified khatedar of Survey No.35/1 was Sri.G.B.Harsha and Sri.M.Jayarama in respect to Survey No.35/2A. The original khatedar, never challenged the land acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey Nos.35/1 and 35/2A and therefore, the petitioners would not have locus standi to challenge the inclusion of lands in Survey Nos.35/1 and 35/2A while filing the writ petition. Insofar as lands bearing Survey No.36/1, the