Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 24(2) of the BDA Act and Scheme Lapse - This section deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings when the scheme is not substantially implemented within a certain period. Specifically, if the authority fails to execute the scheme within five years from the final notification, the scheme automatically lapses. The lapse under Section 24(2) is linked to the non-implementation of the scheme and not directly to possession or compensation. For example, it is noted that Section 24(2) - Challenge to land acquisition - Petitioners claimed lapsing of acquisition due to failure to execute the scheme within statutory ... ["S.V. Jayamma W/o Late Kariappa vs State of Karnataka - Karnataka"] and Section 24(2) - Lapse of acquisition proceedings - Acquiring Authority neither taking over possession of lands nor ... ["Evershine Monuments (Earlier Known As M/S. Granite Exporters) A Partnership Firm VS State of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development - 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 1269"].
Distinction Between Scheme Lapse and Acquisition Lapse - Several judgments clarify that lapse of a scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act does not necessarily mean the acquisition itself lapses, especially if land has vested in the state under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition can remain valid even if the scheme lapses due to non-implementation. As stated, Where, upon completion of the acquisition proceedings, the land has vested in the State Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act. ["Yellamma Dasappa Medical College and Research Foundation Registered Charitable Trust vs State of Karnataka - Karnataka"] and the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act. ["Bangalore Development Authority, Represented By Its Commissioner vs State Of Karnataka, Department Of Housing And Urban Development, Represented By Its Secretary - Karnataka"].
Automatic and Statutory Nature of Scheme Lapse - The lapse under Section 27 is automatic if the scheme is not substantially implemented within five years from the notification. This is a statutory requirement, and courts have held that if the Authority fails to do so, then the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act will become inoperative. ["Akkayamma D/o Late Chinnayallappa vs State Of Karnataka - Karnataka"] and Section 27 of the BDA Act mandates that if the scheme is not implemented within 5 years from the date of publication of declaration, the scheme shall lapse. ["Chennamma W/o Late Muniyappa vs State of Karnataka - Karnataka"].
Legal Consequences and Judicial Viewpoints - Courts have consistently held that failure to implement the scheme within the statutory period results in lapse, and this can lead to the declaration that the acquisition itself has lapsed, especially when possession has not been taken or compensation paid. For instance, the scheme has not been substantially implemented and had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act ["Akkayamma D/o Late Chinnayallappa vs State Of Karnataka - Karnataka"], and the scheme has lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act on account of non-implementation within the statutory period. ["Akkayamma D/o Late Chinnayallappa vs State Of Karnataka - Karnataka"]. However, even if the scheme lapses, the acquisition may still stand valid if land has vested in the state under relevant provisions.
Application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act - This section provides for the lapse of acquisition proceedings if physical possession has not been taken or the scheme has not been substantially implemented. Courts have held that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, for brevity), having come into force, the same would be applicable to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. ["Evershine Monuments (Earlier Known As M/S. Granite Exporters) A Partnership Firm VS State of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development - 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 1269"]. When possession has not been taken, landowners can seek declaration of lapse under this section, as seen in Section 24(2) - Lapse of acquisition proceedings ["S.V. Jayamma W/o Late Kariappa vs State of Karnataka - Karnataka"].
Interplay Between State Acts and 2013 Act - The courts emphasize that provisions under State Acts like the BDA Act or KUDA Act concerning scheme lapse (Section 27) operate independently of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. Section 24 of the Act 2013 (whether it is sub-section (1) or(2)) applies only when acquisition proceedings have been initiated under ... the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and lapse of acquisition has to be considered under that Act only. ["Evershine Monuments (Earlier Known As M/S. Granite Exporters) A Partnership Firm VS State of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development - 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 1269"] and Section 24 of the 2013 Act cannot trammel upon those provisions of the State Acts such as BDA Act or KUDA Act. ["Akkayamma D/o Late Chinnayallappa vs State Of Karnataka - Karnataka"].
Judicial Consistency and Delay - Courts have also highlighted that declarations of lapse based on non-implementation should be sought promptly, typically within five years of scheme lapsing, to prevent delay and laches from affecting the remedy. For example, a declaration being sought as to the scheme having lapsed would have to be sought for at the earliest point of time, namely, immediately after the lapse of five years from the date of the final notification. ["Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority vs State Of Karnataka - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The judgments collectively establish that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act provides a statutory mechanism for declaring land acquisition lapsing when possession has not been taken or the scheme has not been substantially implemented. Conversely, Section 27 of the BDA Act mandates that if a development scheme is not executed within five years, it automatically lapses, but this does not necessarily nullify the acquisition if land has vested under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. Courts emphasize that these provisions operate independently, and the lapse of a scheme under State Acts does not automatically mean the acquisition lapses, especially if possession or vesting has occurred. Proper procedural steps and timely declarations are crucial to invoke lapse provisions effectively.
In the realm of urban development in Bangalore, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) plays a pivotal role in acquiring land for layouts and infrastructure. A frequent query arises: What does Section 24 of the BDA Act say about scheme lapse? Contrary to common misconception, there is no Section 24 in the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act) that directly governs scheme lapse. Instead, Section 27 is the cornerstone provision, mandating substantial execution of schemes within five years from the declaration under Section 19(1), or the scheme lapses, rendering Section 36 (incorporating Land Acquisition Act provisions) inoperative. Poornaprajana House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. VS State of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Ambedkar Veedhi - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 135Evershine Monuments (Earlier Known As M/S. Granite Exporters) A Partnership Firm VS State of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development - 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 1269
This article demystifies the lapse mechanism, drawing from authoritative judgments and distinguishing it from provisions like Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). Whether you're a landowner challenging acquisition or a developer navigating BDA processes, understanding these rules is crucial. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
BDA schemes begin with preparation under Sections 15-19. A preliminary notification under Section 17 invites objections, followed by government sanction under Section 18(3), and final declaration under Section 19(1). Acquisition then proceeds via Section 36, which incorporates Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) procedures. For instance, on 30.12.2008, the BDA published a scheme and Section 17 notification, approved by the Government of Karnataka on 3.12.2008. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 767
The critical timeline kicks in post-Section 19(1) publication. Section 27 states: Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative. Poornaprajana House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. VS State of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Ambedkar Veedhi - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 135Lakshmamma, W/o Late Madegowda VS State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary to Government Department of Urban Development - 2018 0 Supreme(Kar) 437
Courts evaluate 'substantial execution' factually, often finding less than 20-50% land utilization insufficient. In one BTM Layout case, layouts formed on only 31 acres out of 524 acres (less than 10%) triggered lapse: the extent of land utilized is less than 10%... which would bring into play Section 27 of the BDA Act. Ravindra T. S/o Late Thimmappa VS State of Karnataka by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha Bangalor - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 202 Another held ~20% implementation inadequate: an implementation of the scheme in respect of only about one-fifth... is never a substantial implementation. Ravindra T. S/o Late Thimmappa VS State of Karnataka by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha Bangalor - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 202
The five-year clock starts from Section 19(1) publication, but courts clarify it aligns with possession-taking, excluding litigation delays: In computing delay... the relevant date is the one when possession of the land is taken... When delay is attributable to the filibustering litigations... Section 27 does not avail. Poornaprajana House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. VS State of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Ambedkar Veedhi - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 135
Recent judgments reinforce this. In a case where BDA claimed development but lacked proof, the court concluded: if on a plain examination of the extent of land that has been acquired and developed into a layout by the BDA, it is plausible to safely conclude that the Scheme has not been substantially implemented. Sreeramappa VS State of Karnataka - 2016 Supreme(Kar) 187 The petition was allowed, quashing notifications due to lapse under Section 27. Sreeramappa VS State of Karnataka - 2016 Supreme(Kar) 187
Lapse makes Section 36 inoperative for unvested lands, potentially quashing notifications: With the admitted position being that subject land had not yet been taken possession of before the scheme lapsed... the preliminary and final Notifications... have also to be quashed. Ravindra T. S/o Late Thimmappa VS State of Karnataka by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha Bangalor - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 202 However, vested lands (post-LA Act Section 16 possession) do not revert: Merely because allegedly the scheme lapses, that per se will not result into reversion of the acquired land to the erstwhile land owners. Poornaprajana House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. VS State of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Ambedkar Veedhi - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 135
A Division Bench clarified: On a conjunctive reading of the provisions of Section 27 and 36 of the BDA Act... the scheme may lapse but the acquisition shall not. A. Chandrashekar VS State of Karnataka - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 851 Once land vests under LA Act Section 16, lapse under Section 27 doesn't terminate it. A. Chandrashekar VS State of Karnataka - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 851
The BDA Act is a 'self-contained code.' LA Act/LARR provisions apply only via incorporation under Section 36, not wholesale: the BDA Act is a self-contained code. The language of Section 36 of the BDA Act clearly mandates legislation by incorporation. Bangalore Development Authority VS State of Karnataka - 2022 2 Supreme 226
Section 24(2) LARR, causing lapse if compensation unpaid and possession not taken for five years post-LA Act 1894 proceedings, is inapplicable: Section 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013... applies only when acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894. Evershine Monuments (Earlier Known As M/S. Granite Exporters) A Partnership Firm VS State of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development - 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 1269Lakshmamma, W/o Late Madegowda VS State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary to Government Department of Urban Development - 2018 0 Supreme(Kar) 437
The erroneous Chikkathayamma (ILR 2016 KAR 1603) applied it to BDA but was overruled: the judgment in Chikkathayamma’s case... cannot be considered to be binding precedent as they are contrary to the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court... Section 24 of the 2013 Act is not applicable to an acquisition initiated under the BDA Act. Evershine Monuments (Earlier Known As M/S. Granite Exporters) A Partnership Firm VS State of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development - 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 1269Lakshmamma, W/o Late Madegowda VS State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary to Government Department of Urban Development - 2018 0 Supreme(Kar) 437
Other rulings echo: Even if a scheme lapses under Section 27, acquisition doesn't if vested. SRI. L. RAMAREDDY Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKASMT MADDURAMMA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
In criminal contexts, like de-notification disputes, Section 27 lapse claims arise but require proof. Shylaja W/o V. Somanna VS Superintendent of Police Lokayukta - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 1Shylaja W/o V. Somanna VS Superintendent of Police Lokayukta - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 9
Scheme lapse under BDA Act Section 27 hinges on factual substantiality, not rigid timelines or external acts like LARR. Judgments prioritize BDA's self-contained framework, protecting vested interests while enabling challenges to stalled projects. Stay informed on evolving precedents from Karnataka High Court for strategic navigation.
References include key documents like BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 767, Bangalore Development Authority VS State of Karnataka - 2022 2 Supreme 226, Evershine Monuments (Earlier Known As M/S. Granite Exporters) A Partnership Firm VS State of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development - 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 1269, Lakshmamma, W/o Late Madegowda VS State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary to Government Department of Urban Development - 2018 0 Supreme(Kar) 437, Poornaprajana House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. VS State of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Ambedkar Veedhi - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 135, Ravindra T. S/o Late Thimmappa VS State of Karnataka by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha Bangalor - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 202, Savithramma VS State Of Karnataka - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1274, Sreeramappa VS State of Karnataka - 2016 Supreme(Kar) 187, A. Chandrashekar VS State of Karnataka - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 851, Ammayamma W/o Late G. Krishnappa Since Deceased by Her LRs. Gangamma K. vs State of Karnataka - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 1025, and others cited inline.
#BDASchemeLapse, #LandAcquisition, #BDAAct
), 19(1), and 27 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section ... 24(2) - Challenge to land acquisition - Petitioners claimed lapsing of acquisition due to failure to execute the scheme within statutory ... 27 of the BDA Act for non-execution of the scheme or under Section 24(2) of Act 30 of 2013 for want of possession and compensation? ... Here, the lapse ass....
The relief sought is not under Section 24 of the Act, 2013 but under Section 27 of the BDA Act. iii. The foundation of claim is statutory lapse due to non-implementation of the scheme and absence of vesting, not irregularity of vesting. ... Where, upon completion of the acquisition proceedings, the land has vested in the State Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition would not ....
Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that lapse under Section 24 sub-clause 2 of the 2013, Act is not available to the petitioner. Even though Section 24 (2) does not apply, this Court must consider whether on facts the acquisition stands abandoned. ... Section 27 of the BDA Act applies when the layout scheme is not substantially implemented within 5 years of final notification. This only affects the sch....
However, no relief was sought referring to the lapse of the land acquisition proceedings in the context of Section 27 of the BDA Act and therefore, the present writ petition wherein the declaration had been sought regarding lapse of the Land Acquisition proceedings in the context of Section 27 of BDA ... Further, the petitioners would be barred from raising the said issue while seeking declaration about lapsing of the scheme under Section#H....
If the Authority fails to do so, then the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act will become inoperative. ... Where, upon completion of the acquisition proceedings, the land has vested in the State Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA #....
For the scheme to lapse there must be proof regarding the failure on the part of the authority to execute the scheme substantially within five years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. ... Authority to execute the scheme within five years - Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section ....
of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act. ... If the Authority fails to do so, then the scheme shall lapse and provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act will become inoperative. ... One such relief is under sub-section(2) of Section 24 of the Act, dealing with lapse of acquisition by a fiction. ... 27 of the Act....
NO. 30/2013] - Section 24(2) - Lapse of acquisition proceedings - Acquiring Authority neither taking over possession of lands nor ... State of Karnataka, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8215] has considered a situation of lapse and locus standi of the subsequent purchaser to file a writ petition for a declaration on lapse, though not under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. ... proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the ....
It was further contended that Section 27 of KUDA Act as well as BDA Act provide for lapse of scheme of development and consequent in-operation of Section 36 of the Act. ... Acquisition Act, the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act. ... If the Authority fails to....
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. ... Hence, he would submit that neither under Section 27 of the BDA Act nor under Section 24 of the 2013 Act could it be said that the acquisition or the scheme have lapsed and hence, he would seek....
On a conjunctive reading of the provisions of Section 27 and 36 of the-29- BDA Act, it was held that the scheme may lapse but the acquisition shall not. Acquisition stands on a completely distinct footing from the scheme formulated which is the subject-matter of execution under the provisions of the BDA Act. Upon the completion of the acquisition proceedings and when once the land vests in the State Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act.
After acquisition, State Government vests the acquired land with the BDA for formation of a layout strictly in accordance with the sanctioned scheme. The development scheme made by the BDA provides for acquisition of the land, laying and relaying of all or any land including the construction and reconstruction of buildings, formation and alteration of the streets, provision for drainage, water supply, electricity, reservation of not less than 15% of the area of the layout for public purpose and playground and an additional area of not less than 10% of the total area of the layout for civic a....
The remaining land in survey number is de-notified in favour of Housing Cooperative Society on two occasions. The second accused purchased the land without knowing the acquisition proceedings; c. Physical possession of the land since was not taken over by BDA, the possession remained with accused No.4; d. As per Section 27 of BDA Act, 1976, the scheme will lapse if the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the official gazette. e. Issuance of notification under Section 16(2) of Land Acquisition ....
The remaining land in survey number is de-notified in favour of Housing Cooperative Society on two occasions. As per Section 27 of BDA Act, 1976, the scheme will lapse if the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the official gazette. e. Issuance of notification under Section 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act is not sufficient unless physical possession is taken. The second accused purchased the land without knowing the acquisition proceedings; c. Physical possession of the land since was not taken ....
8. In the above circumstances, if on a plain examination of the extent of land that has been acquired and developed into a layout by the BDA, it is plausible to safely conclude that the Scheme has not been substantially implemented. The further contention of the BDA that one impediment was the large number of litigated matters, where there were orders of stay, which prevented the BDA from speedy implementation of the Scheme, is not supported by any material and in that view of the matter, the question of the Scheme not having been implemented substantially would have to be taken as....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
