Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S. HEMALEKHA
Akkayamma D/o Late Chinnayallappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners who claim through their family lineage as the legal heirs of the original khatedar of Sy No. 99/5 represented through a power of attorney holder, seeking a declaration that the acquisition initiated under the preliminary notification dated 06.08.1988 followed by the final notification dated 03.11.1990 under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the BDA Act’) has lapsed, primarily on the ground that the scheme has not been implemented within the statutory period under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘the Act’ for short) and that the physical possession has never been taken nor compensation paid.
2. The land bearing Sy. No. 99/5 measuring 13 guntas situated at Bilekanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, (‘petition land’) originally belonged to Ramakka devolved upon her children and grandchildren and later the petitioners succeeded to the property through inheritance. The petition land was notified for acquisition under the scheme called ‘Byrasandra- Tavarkere-Madivala IV Stage Layout’ (‘BTM Layout IV Stage Scheme’). The petitioners assert that neith
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....
Failure to implement acquisition schemes within statutory timelines results in automatic lapse under law, allowing subsequent property purchasers to assert such lapses.
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 lapse under Section 27 of the BDA Act if the scheme is not implemented and there is no valid vesting under Section 16 of the LA Act.
The court held that subsisting interest is essential for maintaining land acquisition challenges, and statutory compliance prevails over claims of lapse unless proven otherwise.
Acquisition proceedings lapse as government fails to take possession and pass awards within reasonable time; prior court liberties enable claims for de-notification.
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
