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.

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 notification dated 28.07.1990 has remained wholly unimplemented for more than three decades. He draws the attention of the Court to the endorsement dated 12.03.2014 issued by the BDA at Annexure Q wherein the BDA has categorically admitted that no award has been passed, no possession has been taken and the land has been utilized for the formation of the scheme. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ravindra T. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others , W.P. No. 55159/2014, dated 19.07.2022 (Ravindra) the learned Senior Counsel contends that mere dismissal of an earlier petition for want of relevant material does not operate as a res judicata nor can it be construed as a decision on merits. As held therein, unless and until the authority demonstrate substantial implementation of the scheme, the land owner continues to have a recurring cause of action to challenge the acquisition, and the earlier dismissal cannot defeat his statutory and constitutional rights.

5. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Offshore Holdings Private Limited vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others , (2011) 3 SCC 139 (Offshore Holdings Private Limited) to contend that the land can be said to vest in the State Government only upon passing of the award and taking possession as contemplated under Section 16 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. In the absence of these essential steps, and particularly when the scheme itself has lapsed, the further operation of Section 36 sub-clause 3 of the BDA Act becomes inoperative, rendering the acquisition incapable of being enforced. On this foundation it is submitted that the acquisition has been abandoned by respondent no. 1 and therefore deserves to be quashed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further relies on the Division Bench judgment in Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka and Others , ILR 2018 KAR 2144 (BDA) wherein it has been held that even in the absence of statutory time limit, the power of acquisition must be exercised within a reasonable period. The Division Bench has clarified that an acquisition, once initiated, must be completed by passing the award, paying the compensation and taking possession within a reasonable time, failing which the proceedings cannot be permitted to linger indefinitely. Reference is also made to C. Jacob vs Secretary and Another , 2020 SCC Online Kar 308 (C.Jacob), wherein this Court held that if the BDA itself