O R D E R

Heard the learned Senior counsel Shri S.M.

Chandrashekar appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent – BDA.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.21/3 measuring 31 guntas of Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The land was earlier said to be part of land bearing Sy.No.21/2 which totally measured 1 acre 11 guntas. The land had been purchased by the petitioner’s father in the year 1944. The said land was notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA Act’, for brevity), for the purpose of formation of a residential layout known as Byresandra Tavarekere and Madiwala (BTM) 6th Stage Layout, as per the preliminary notification dated 8.9.1987, followed by a final notification issued on 28.07.1990. However, even after a lapse of more than 17 years from the date of the final notification, the land has not been utilized for the formation of the layout. The petitioner is said to have purchased the land on 3.2.2012, much after the final notification was issued.

3. It is stated by the learned Senior Advocate that the total land acquired under the acquisition proceedings was 388 acres and 9 guntas, out of which only 31 acre and 2 guntas has been utilized for the formation of a layout. Therefore, even as on date, the scheme has not been substantially implemented, by virtue of which the scheme itself would lapse in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act. Secondly, though it is claimed that physical possession has been taken as early as on 31.05.1994 by issuance of a 16(2) notification and a mahazar dated 22.03.1994, it is pointed out that the mahazar would not stand the scrutiny of a court of law, for, it is a standard format with blanks filled in and significant event of valuable land being taken possession of, is not in the presence of the owner of the land or a representative of the owner. The only other persons who are said to have been present are four persons who are said to have signed the mahazar and except for names which can barely be made out from the signatures, there is no indication of their age or residential address or their parentage, in the absence of which, it would be well-nigh impossible for the BDA to prove the said document, if the BDA is called upon to do so. Hence, if the mahazar is the document evidencing taking over of physical possession and if that is unacceptable, the question of notifying the land under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’, for brevity) would be a meaningless exercise and without any basis and therefore, would submit that not only the scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, but the very acquisition lapses in terms of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’, for brevity) and hence seeks a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. The contention that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and would have no right to question the acquisition proceedings, would also not be tenable, for this Court, in the case of Smt. Nagu Bai and Others vs. State of Karnataka ILR 2001 KAR 1169, has held that the declaration as to the acquisition or the scheme lapsing be granted even in favour of a subsequent purchaser and therefore, seeks that the petition be allowed and the proceedings be quashed insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned.

4. The learned counsel for the BDA on the other hand, would point out that the notifications are of the year 1987 and 1990. The possession having been taken is evidenced by documents available on record, even according to the petitioner. The award amount has been deposited in the Civil Court. The contention that the scheme has not been substantially implemented and therefore, the scheme lapses i