Failure to demonstrate legal possession invalidates land acquisition; lapse of the acquisition scheme confirmed by statutory mandates.

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 petitioner [respondent No.2 herein], no further notices were issued, and the petitioner has continued in physical possession of the land till date. It is further pleaded that, though the layout was formed, the land in question remained untouched and, therefore, in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act, the scheme has lapsed insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned. It is also pleaded that, in view of the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, 2013 Act as neither the compensation amount has been paid nor physical possession taken, the acquisition has lapsed.

3.3 The appellant – BDA, by filing its statement of objections, has contended that the acquisition proceedings have been completed in all respects.

3.4 The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the matter, held that the BDA had neither paid nor deposited the compensation amount, and that taking of actual physical possession of the property in question was not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It was further concluded that the scheme under which the acquisition proceedings were initiated had lapsed, and that the acquisition itself stood lapsed in the light of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Accordingly, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question were quashed.

Submissions

4. Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the appellant – BDA, vehemently contended that the preliminary notification in respect of the land in question was issued on 08.09.1987 and the final notification on 28.07.1990. The learned counsel submitted that possession of the land was taken, an award was passed, and the compensation amount was deposited before the Civil Court. It was further submitted that a Notification under Section 16 (2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, LA Act was issued, and thereafter the land vested with the State Government. Subsequently, the development plan was prepared, sites were formed, and allotment was made to eligible beneficiaries. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the acquisition proceedings and the scheme were complete in all aspects, and that the question of the scheme or the notifications having lapsed does not arise.

4.1 The learned counsel submitted that respondent No.2 had filed a reference under Sectio