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 ownership.

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 objections were considered by the BDA. A preliminary notification was issued on 29.12.1988, followed by the final notification dated 30.11.1990 for the formation of Venkateshwara layout. An award is stated to have been passed in the year 1993 and BDA asserts that possession was taken under a mahazar dated 06.10.1993. The petitioners claim to be in peaceful, physical and uninterrupted possession of the schedule property and in support of its possession, conversion orders, RTC, tax receipts, e-katha, fencing, survey sketch and photographs are produced. The schedule property was also converted for residential use in 1999 i.e., long after the alleged taking of possession, evidencing that BDA itself recognized the ownership and possession of the petitioners. Multiple decisions of this Court have declared that the Venkateshwara layout scheme have lapsed and those findings have been attained finality. The petitioners approached the BDA for NOC in 2025, whereupon the BDA issued an endorsement asserting ownership based on 1990 notification leading to the filing of the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent No.2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act as the scheme was never implemented within the statutory five year period. The BDA itself has admitted the lapse in several writ petitions which have been allowed. It is specifically contended that the mahazar is cyclostyle, the alleged mahazar dated 06.10.1993 lacks witness signatures, prepared without application of mind and neither Section 16 (2) notification was issued. Reliance is placed on the decision in A.P Electrical Equipment Corporation, (supra), where the Apex Court has held that paper possession or cyclostyle panchanama do not vest land in State and have no sanctity in law. It is further submitted that conversion order of 1999 demonstrate BDA's acknowledgment that the land remained with the petitioners, which would be impossible if possession had been taken in the year 1993. The following judgments have been placed reliance to contend that the scheme pertaining to Venkateshwara layout has been declared to have lapsed :

(i) The Commissioner, BDA, and Others vs Mrs. Anandamma and Another , WA 6838/2017, D.D.4.2.2020 (Anandamma)

(ii) Smt. Muniyamma vs State of Karnataka and Others , W.P 43674/2013, DD 27.03.2014 (Muniyamma).

(iii) L. Krishnappa and Others vs The Commissioner, BDA and Others , WP 7218/2014, DD 10.04.2014 (L.Krishnappa).

(iv) Smt. Papamma and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others , WPs 3349-3359/2016 DD 23.04.2016 (Papamma).

5. Reliance is also placed on the decisions where the schemes have been declared as lapsed