Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.HEMALEKHA
M. Ramakrishna Reddy S/o Late Munipapaiah – Appellant
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the preliminary notification dated 08.09.1987 and the final notification dated 28.07.1990 issued for acquisition of land measuring 15 guntas in Sy. No. 3/2 of Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
Brief facts.
2. The petitioner claims title over the land through his father, late Munipapaiah who was conferred occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act. The entire 36 guntas in Sy. No. 3/2 was notified for acquisition in 1987-88 for formation of BTM 6th stage layout. The claim of the petitioner is that the BDA's endorsement dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure Q) confirms that no award has been passed, no possession has been taken and the land has not been utilized. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner succeeded to 15 guntas through a registered partition deed and continues to remain in uninterrupted physical possession.
3. Heard Sri Pramod N. Kathavi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/BDA and the learned AGA for respondent No.2/State.
4. Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the preliminary notification dated 08.09.1987 and the final notifica
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 held that subsisting interest is essential for maintaining land acquisition challenges, and statutory compliance prevails over claims of lapse unless proven otherwise.
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 demonstrate legal possession invalidates land acquisition; lapse of the acquisition scheme confirmed by statutory mandates.
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 established that failure to notify landowners and to take possession in accordance with the law invalidates the land acquisition process.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
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
