THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 07.12.2022 IN WRIT PETITION No.39971/2018 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.04.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This writ appeal is preferred against the Order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.39971/2018 (LA-BDA).

2. We have heard Shri. Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel along with Smt. Latha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Smt. S. Susheela, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Shivaraju M.K., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that respondent No.1 claimed ownership of land bearing Sy.No.81/1 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas at Arakere Villlage, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) initiated acquisition proceedings for formation of 'BTM VI Stage' Layout through Preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987, published in the Official Gazette on 18.02.1988 and Final Notification dated 28.07.1990. Respondent No.1, though notified as kathedar, did not file objections. The mahazar was drawn on 14.11.1990 for taking possession. An Award was passed on 01.01.1994. The land was handed over to the Engineering Department on 22.03.1994 and compensation of Rs.1,89,043/- was deposited before the City Civil Court in LAC No.239/1996 under Sections 30, 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 07.10.1995.

4. Writ Petition No.15733/1994 was filed by respondent No.1, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 09.06.1994 with liberty to file a fresh petition. Writ Petition No.17408/1994 was filed by Smt. Suguna, who claimed possession under an Agreement of Sale from respondent No.1 and the same was dismissed on 08.01.1997 on the ground that acquisition had been completed and she had no legal right to challenge it. Writ Petition No.3122/1997 filed by respondent No.1 challenging the Preliminary and Final Notifications, which was dismissed on 18.08.1998 holding that acquisition was complete. Further, Civil Suits in O.S No.6317/1994 and O.S. No.8419/1999 were also filed by third parties claiming possession over the very same land, indicating that respondent No.1 has parted with his rights in favour of third parties. On 28.07.2017, BDA has issued an intimation letter stating that the award amount had been deposited in its RD account, which is pending disbursement. Despite vesting of the land in BDA and repeated opportunities to receive compensation, respondent No.1 failed to collect the award amount and instead continued filing litigation with the object of reclaiming the acquired land.

5. Respondent No.1 again filed Writ Petition No.39771/2018 alleging that the acquisition proceedings has lapsed as abandoned in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act' for short) and in view of Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 and also to quash the Preliminary and Final Notifications dated 08.09.1987 and 28.07.1990 insofar as the Petition Schedule Property is concerned.

6. After considering the contentions advanced, the learned Single Judge found that the Petition Schedule Property formed a part of the proposed 'BTM VI Stage' Scheme of the BDA. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision in the case of Honnappa v. State of Karnataka and Others passed in Writ Petition No.55991/2015 by order dated 18.09.2017, wherein 'BTM VI Stage' Scheme had lapsed and the acquisition p