Acquisition proceedings lapse as government fails to take possession and pass awards within reasonable time; prior court liberties enable claims for de-notification.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.46501/2017 (LA-BDA).

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the deceased respondent No.2 filed a writ petition seeking prayer to declare that the preliminary notification dated 26.03.1999 and the final notification dated 11.09.2000 are lapsed insofar as the schedule property. It is averred that the deceased respondent No.2 was the owner of the lands in different survey numbers of Gollahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, including land in Sy.No.16/1A measuring 20 guntas of Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which is the subject matter of this appeal. It is further averred that in the said property, the family members of the deceased respondent No.2 are residing from the last 30-35 years and out of the said extent, 20 guntas of the land has been notified for acquisition and the remaining extent of the said survey number has been sold to third party. It is also averred that the appellant-BDA did not pass any award, possession was not taken and no layout was formed. Hence, he sought for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed and abandoned. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the BDA.

3. Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the acquisition proceedings was rejected and liberty was reserved to seek de-notification and without doing so, filing of the present petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition is lapsed, is not maintainable. It is submitted that the deceased respondent No.2 had consented for the acquisition which is evident from the communication dated 07.06.1999 at Document No.1 produced along with the statement of objections filed by the appellants. Once the consent is given to the acquisition, they are estopped from challenging the acquisition. It is further submitted that the appellants have alienated the land in favour of Sri.K.Venkataraman as per Document No.2. Hence, he has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. It is also submitted that the filing of the writ petition in the year 2017 seeking the relief of lapsing is hit by delay and laches and there cannot be lapsing of acquisition of small extent. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the cases of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER , WA No.754/2023 dt. 18.9.25 and THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS , WA No.4121/2017 dt. 24.5.22. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.2(a to e) supports the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and submits that in the earlier writ petition filed by the wife of the petitioner challenging the preliminary and final notifications issued by the BDA mainly on the ground that the adjacent survey numbers are not included in the acquisition proceedings was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. This Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to seek deletion of the property from acquisition. It is submitted that the prayer in the present petition is seeking a