An acquisition scheme under the development authority act lapses by operation of law if it is not substantially implemented within five years of the final notification. Writ courts will not resolve disputed questions of title or fraud, leaving such matters to competent forums.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 09/03/2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of

mandamus and appropriate reliefs, inter alia seeking a

declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land

bearing Sy. No. 24 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas situated at

Kothnur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,

have lapsed, and for consequential direction to respondent

No. 2 - Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’) arising out

of its continued inaction in considering the petitioner’s

representation dated 08.11.2012 and 19.05.2014.

BRIEF FACTS IN NUTSHELL

2. The petitioner claims through her grandfather, late

Gullappa, who, according to the petitioner, was granted

occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in Proceedings No.

LRF.1651/74-75 dated 05.09.1979 and whose rights later

devolved upon the petitioner through a Will pursuant to

which the petitioner's name has been recorded in the

revenue records. The amended writ petition proceeds on the

footing that Sy. No. 24, measuring 2 acres 24 guntas, fell to

the petitioner's share and stood reflected in the revenue

records. It is stated that the land in Sy. No. 24 was notified

for acquisition for formation of JP Nagar 8th Stage under

preliminary notification dated 23.03.1988 and final

notification dated 19.10.1994. It is asserted that the

objections were filed, that compensation was deposited in

Court, and that repeated representations for de-notification

dated 08.11.2012 and 19.05.2014 were not considered.

Petitioner also relies upon the same circumstance that land

in the very same survey number came to be de-notified in

favour of another land owner and the scheme itself stood

drastically reduced in subsequent notification and litigation.

The petitioner states that from an original large extent, the

later notification came down substantially and according to

the petitioner the land claimed by her was not part of the

latter reduced scheme. It is stated that in the earlier round,

the writ petition was allowed by order dated 21.04.2016, but

the said order came to be set aside in Writ Appeal

1292/2018 and connected Writ Appeals on 20.03.2019

primarily to permit the impleading and hearing of the

allottees/purchasers. Thereafter, the private respondents

entered appearance and raised specific objections regarding

title, extent and alleged fabrication in the Land Tribunal

proceedings. During the pendency of these proceedings, a

Court Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner's

report dated 25.07.2022 records that within Sy. No. 24

admeasuring 6 acres 31 guntas, 151 sites had been formed,

of which 66 sites had constructed and 85 sites remained

vacant and the report also refers to the title documents said

to have been produced by the site owners. Subsequently, on

the allegations raised by the private respondents touching

the genuineness of the Land Tribunal order, this Court

directed an enquiry on 06.02.2025 into the genuineness of

the Land Tribunal order dated 05.09.1979 in so far as it

related to Sy No. 24 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas. The

enquiry culminated in a report adverse to the petitioner.

2.1. Learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Lakshmy Iyengar for

the petitioner would contend that the central issue in the

present petition is not adjudication of inter se title, but lapse

of acquisition on account of failure of the scheme. It is

submitted that the acquisition proceedings under the

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘the BDA Act’

for short) could not survive indepen