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
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 preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, BDA Act, dated 08.09.1987 [gazetted on 11.02.1988], was issued proposing to acquire 805 acres 21 guntas of land comprising two villages, namely, Hulimavu and Arakere. A final notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act was issued on 28.07.1990 acquiring 562 acres 34 guntas, while an extent of 240 acres was dropped from the acquisition proceedings.
3.2 According to the
Offshore Holdings Private Limited vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others
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....
The court confirmed that land acquisition remains valid despite claims of abandonment if possession was taken and the scheme implemented as per law.
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 failure to notify landowners and to take possession in accordance with the law invalidates the land acquisition process.
Acquisition proceedings lapse if there is no substantive implementation or legally acceptable evidence of possession by the authority.
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.