Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
The Writ Appeal No.715/2022 is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2370/2015 dated 05.07.2021 while Writ Appeal No.752/2022 is filed against the judgment dated 06.01.2021 in Writ Petition No.33142/2017.
2. In Writ Appeal No.715/2022 arising out of the judgment in Writ Petition No.2370/2015, the property in question was bearing Sy.No.9 measuring 27 guntas of Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. The Writ Petitioners prayed for a declaration that the scheme of BTM 6th Stage Layout Preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987 and the Final Notification dated 28.07.1990 insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned has lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1987, (for short 'BDA Act') read with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act' for short).
3. Writ Appeal No.752/2022 arises out of the judgment in Writ Petition No.33142/2017, the property in question was bearing Sy.No.21/1C5 measuring 35 guntas of Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru
Acquisition proceedings lapse if there is no substantive implementation or legally acceptable evidence of possession by the authority.
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 ....
Failure to implement acquisition schemes within statutory timelines results in automatic lapse under law, allowing subsequent property purchasers to assert such lapses.
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....
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....
Acquisition proceedings lapse as government fails to take possession and pass awards within reasonable time; prior court liberties enable claims for de-notification.
The court held that subsisting interest is essential for maintaining land acquisition challenges, and statutory compliance prevails over claims of lapse unless proven otherwise.
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 court established that possession taken and compensation paid prevent lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, emphasizing the need for both conditions to be unmet for any lapse to ....
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
