A development scheme lapses if not substantially implemented within the statutory period. Vesting of land in the state is incomplete and ineffective unless both actual physical possession is taken in accordance with law and compensation is legally tendered or deposited for the land owner.

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Bangalore Development Authority in respect of land measuring 3 acres 13 guntas in Sy No. 85, Kacharakanahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, on the ground that the scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976; that possession was never taken nor compensation paid and that the acquisition cannot be revived after four decades. The petitioner seeks for quashing of the notification and endorsement dated 21.07.2022.

BRIEF FACTS :

2. The schedule property was purchased by one Mr. S. F. Yaganagi in 1946 and is used for religious, spiritual and welfare activities of Baha’i community. A preliminary notification dated 21.03.1977 and final notification dated 14.05.1980 were issued for formation of HRBR layout. In 1981, the Yaganagi Trust was constituted and the property vested in the Trust. Objections were filed and sought de-notification. Bangalore Development Authority’s (‘BDA’ for short) Engineering Wing on inspection, reported that the land was not suitable for layout formation and BDA, in its resolution 1987 recommended reconveyance. An award dated 22.09.1986 was passed. In WP 18877/1986, this Court stayed the award notice on 27.10.1986 preventing taking over of possession. According to the petitioner, no compensation was ever paid, and physical possession remained with the Trust and that the BDA's own internal note records that the Trust continues in possession and the structures exist on the land. It is stated that the Trust continued all religious, educational and welfare activities, paid taxes, maintained katha and remained uninterruptedly in possession for more than 4 decades. On 21.07.2022, BDA issued an endorsement asserting that possession has been taken in 1986, that compensation was available for collection and sought documents. Aggrieved, the present writ petition.

3. Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the schedule land (Sy. No. 85, measuring 3 acres 13 guntas) has been continuously used as a religious, spiritual and welfare center of Baha’i faith for decades, housing, housing permanent structures, compound walls and ancillary facilities, “Tuba Palace”. It is stated that the Trust is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The property functions as a recognized center with international linkage. It is contended that the actual settled possession with substantial construction is evidenced through the inspection reports, award narrative and photographs. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that preliminary notification was in the year 1977 and final notification in the year 1980, award notice was stayed by this Court on 27.10.1986 and the interim order continued till final disposal. Consequently, no lawful possession was taken. It is submitted that the multiple spot inspections by the BDA officials recorded that the land contained valuable old structures lay away from regular layout and was not advantageous for acquisition or layout formation. It is submitted that the BDA resolutions dated 03.07.1987 and 11.12.1987 expressly noted that only 33 guntas were vacant and the remainder was built up and unsuitable. These resolutions were forwarded to government under Section 65