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 precedent cases.

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 neither possession was taken nor compensation paid and the scheme has not been substantially executed even after several decades. The revenue records of 2015-16 continues to show the petitioners name and the mahazar relied by the respondents 2 and 3 is said to be defective. They rely upon several similarly placed lands that have been declared lapsed by this Court and where the very same notifications and schemes were held to be abandoned.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3/BDA.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the entire acquisition has lapsed because (i) The scheme has not been substantially implemented within 5 years from the date of declaration as required under Section 27 of the BDA Act. (ii) No possession was taken and compensation has not been tendered or paid. (iii) Several identical matters involving the same notification dated 06.08.1988 and 03.11.1990 have been quashed by this Court and affirmed by the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as under :

(a) Krishna Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Others , W.P 804 of 2016 D.D.05.08.2019 (Krishna Reddy), where the notifications of 1988 and 1990 were quashed, acquisition declared abandoned, affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal 741 of 2021 and again by the Apex Court in SLP 46466 of 2024.

(b) Huchamma vs. State of Karnataka and Others , WP 21831 of 2016, D.D. 15.09.2017 (Huchamma). The acquisition was quashed by placing reliance on Aligarh Development Authority vs. Megh Singh and Others , AIR 2016 SC 2912 (Megh Singh) stating that it was the obligation of the acquiring body to tender the amount of compensation to the land loser and observing that the payment of compensation was not tendered or paid, the conduct on the part of the beneficiary would tantamount to abandonment of acquisition. The Division Bench dismissed the BDA's Appeal in W.A.3884/2019 on delay and merits holding that compensation was never paid and, possession was never taken. The said decision was affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP 21136 of 2021.

(c) Shanthamma and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others , WP 41386-395 of 2017, D.D 24.09.2019 (Shanthamma) relied upon the same line of cases and held that the scheme lapsed and the acquisition was abandoned. Writ Appeal 398 of 2021 preferred by the BDA came to be dismissed, affirmed in SLP 38201 of 2023.

(d) Gowramma vs. State of Karnataka and Others, WP 62545 of 2016, D.D.10.08.2017 (Gowramma) Similar view was taken, acquisition was abandoned and scheme lapsed. Writ Appeal 851 of 2022 preferred by the BDA came to be dismissed and judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. SLP 50258 of 2023 came to be affirmed.

5. Thus would co