Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K S HEMALEKHA
Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority – Respondent
ORDER :
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the final notification dated 30.11.1990 issued for the acquisition of land bearing Sy. No. 19/1A measuring 2 acres 06 guntas situated at Nayandahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South, is non-est on the ground that the entire scheme underlining the said notification has lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act. 1976 (‘BDA Act’ for short) and also on the ground that the alleged possession claimed to have been taken by the respondent under mahazar dated 06.10.1993 is a cyclostyle, invalid paper possession contrary to the binding principles laid down by the Apex Court in A.P Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar and Others , 2025 SCC Online SC 447 (A.P Electrical Equipment Corporation).
BRIEF FACTS
2. The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company and petitioner No.2 is a shareholder of the petitioner No.1. They claim to be the absolute owner of the schedule property, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds of the year 1967 and 1970. It is the case of the petitioners that surrounding lands owned by the petitioners were dropped from acquisition after ob
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....
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 ....
Failure to demonstrate legal possession invalidates land acquisition; lapse of the acquisition scheme confirmed by statutory mandates.
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the fulfillment of the twin requirements of paying/depositing compensation and taking possession of the subject lands is crucial to prevent th....
Acquisition proceedings lapse if there is no substantive implementation or legally acceptable evidence of possession by the authority.
The court held that subsisting interest is essential for maintaining land acquisition challenges, and statutory compliance prevails over claims of lapse unless proven otherwise.
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
