Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
JAYANT BANERJI, K.V.ARAVIND
Bangalore Development Authority, Represented By Its Commissioner – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Department Of Housing And Urban Development, Represented By Its Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of land ownership and acquisition (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties regarding possession and completion of acquisition (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of documents and determination of possession (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 4. final judgment and dismissal of writ appeal (Para 37) |
JUDGMENT :
K.V. ARAVIND, J.
Heard Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the appellant; Smt. N. Anitha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri Rohan Hosmath, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The instant writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, and is directed against the order dated 29.03.2016 passed in W.P. No.38981/2014.
Factual Matrix
3. Respondent No.2 herein has pleaded that he is the absolute owner of land measuring 0.28 guntas in Survey No.21/1B of Hulimavu Village, Bengaluru South Taluk.
3.1 The appellant – Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) had formulated a scheme to develop a residential layout, namely, Byrasandra–Tavarekere–Madivala VI Stage. A pr
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 ....
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.
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....
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
