Acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 27 of the BDA Act if the scheme is not implemented and there is no valid vesting under Section 16 of the LA Act.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are calling in question the legality of the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land situated in Survey No.62 of Doddakallasandra Village for formation of Banshankari V stage layout and the subsequent sale deed executed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioners further seek a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘BDA Act’ for short) on the ground that the scheme was not implemented and possession of the lands were never taken in accordance with Section 16 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short).

Brief facts

2. The undisputed facts are that the predecessor in title of the petitioners purchased land measuring 1 acre 24 guntas with 6 guntas karab in Survey No.62 of Doddakallasandra Village in the year 1981 and thereafter, formed a layout and sold individual sites. The petitioners purchased Site Nos.1, 2, 19, 20, 21 and 22 under registered sale deeds and claims to be in continuous possession.

3. A preliminary notification dated 29.12.1988 and final notification dated 09.05.1994 were issued by the BDA for formation of Banashankari V stage layout. The scheme was examined by this Court in W.P. No.8944/2016, which came to be allowed, declaring lapse of the scheme for non-implementation. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court reserved liberty to the present petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings.

4. Sri Aditya Sondhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no vesting of land under Section 16 of the LA Act, as no valid Section 16 (2) notification covers the scheduled land. He contends that the BDA itself does not claim lawful possession, and that in the absence of vesting, the BDA had no authority to execute a sale deed in favour of respondent No.4. The allotment made in favour of respondent No.4 was only an alternate site and does not amount to an implementation of the scheme. The earlier proceedings initiated by respondent No.4 in W.P. No.6951/2006 and W.A. No.1549/2006 were dismissed, showing lack of possession. Further draws the attention of this Court to the settled position of law that, in the absence of vesting, the acquisition lapses and relies upon the decisions of The Commissioner, BDA and Others vs. Anandamma and Another , W.A. No. 6838/2017 dated 4.2.2020 (Anandamma) and the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Offshore Holdings Private Limited vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others , (2011) 3 SCC 139 (Offshore Holdings Private Limited)

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3-BDA contends that in W.P. No.8944/2016, this Court protected the conveyance in favour of respondent No.4 and the question of lapse does not arise in respect of the land already conveyed. The petitioners are subsequent purchasers and must seek remedy before the Civil Court and the findings in W.P. No.8944/2016 operates as a bar.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners are subsequent to the acquisition notification and the survey number is not clearly mentioned in the sale deeds, that the petitioners were aware of the sale deed executed in the year 2003 but failed to challenge the same in time. He relies upon the decision in the case of Shiva Kumar and another Vs. Union of India and others , (2019) 10 SCC 229 (Shiva Kumar) to contend that purchasers of land, after issuance of an acquisition notification cannot seek a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed, as such transactions are statutorily prohibited.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties