Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K S HEMALEKHA
Yellamma Dasappa Medical College and Research Foundation Registered Charitable Trust – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
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 form
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.
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....
Failure to implement acquisition schemes within statutory timelines results in automatic lapse under law, allowing subsequent property purchasers to assert such lapses.
The court held that subsisting interest is essential for maintaining land acquisition challenges, and statutory compliance prevails over claims of lapse unless proven otherwise.
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 ....
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....
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.
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
