Karnataka High Court
The Bangalore Development Authority vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2025
-1-
WA No. 4718 of 2016
Reserved on : 23.10.2025
Pronounced on : 01.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 4718 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU
Location: HIGH 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
KARNATAKA
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. SRI A.M. LAKSHMINARAYANA,
ALIAS LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA,
S/O LATE MUTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT RAMASWAMY LAYOUT,
AREKERE VILLAGE, HULIMAVU POST,
-2-
WA No. 4718 of 2016
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.38981/2014 BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri G Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the appellant; Smt. N. Anitha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri Rohan Hosmath, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The instant writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, and is directed against the order dated 29.03.2016 passed in W.P. No.38981/2014. -3- WA No. 4718 of 2016 Factual Matrix
3. Respondent No.2 herein has pleaded that he is the absolute owner of land measuring 0.28 guntas in Survey No.21/1B of Hulimavu Village, Bengaluru South Taluk. 3.1 The appellant - Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) had formulated a scheme to develop a residential layout, namely, Byrasandra-Tavarekere-Madivala VI Stage. A preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 19761, dated 08.09.1987 [gazetted on 11.02.1988], was issued proposing to acquire 805 acres 21 guntas of land comprising two villages, namely, Hulimavu and Arakere. A final notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act was issued on 28.07.1990 acquiring 562 acres 34 guntas, while an extent of 240 acres was dropped from the acquisition proceedings.
3.2 According to the petitioner [respondent No.2 herein], no further notices were issued, and the petitioner has continued in physical possession of the land till date. It is further pleaded that, though the layout was formed, the land in question remained untouched and, therefore, in terms of Section 27 of 1 BDA Act -4- WA No. 4718 of 2016 the BDA Act, the scheme has lapsed insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned. It is also pleaded that, in view of the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20132, as neither the compensation amount has been paid nor physical possession taken, the acquisition has lapsed. 3.3 The appellant - BDA, by filing its statement of objections, has contended that the acquisition proceedings have been completed in all respects.
3.4 The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the matter, held that the BDA had neither paid nor deposited the compensation amount, and that taking of actual physical possession of the property in question was not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It was further concluded that the scheme under which the acquisition proceedings were initiated had lapsed, and that the acquisition itself stood lapsed in the light of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Accordingly, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question were quashed.
2 2013 Act -5- WA No. 4718 of 2016 Submissions
4. Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the appellant
- BDA, vehemently contended that the preliminary notification in respect of the land in question was issued on 08.09.1987 and the final notification on 28.07.1990. The learned counsel submitted that possession of the land was taken, an award was passed, and the compensation amount was deposited before the Civil Court. It was further submitted that a Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 18943 was issued, and thereafter the land vested with the State Government. Subsequently, the development plan was prepared, sites were formed, and allotment was made to eligible beneficiaries. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the acquisition proceedings and the scheme were complete in all aspects, and that the question of the scheme or the notifications having lapsed does not arise. 4.1 The learned counsel submitted that respondent No.2 had filed a reference under Section 18(1) of the LA Act, seeking enhancement of compensation under the provisions of the BDA Act. It was further submitted that once a notification under 3 LA Act -6- WA No. 4718 of 2016 Section 16(2) of the LA Act is issued, the land vests absolutely with the Government, and such vesting will not be altered even if the land does not form part of the layout developed under the scheme. The learned counsel also submitted that, prior to the passing of the award, notice was served by affixture both on respondent No.2 and on the previous anubhavdar. 4.2. The learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court:
(i) Bangalore Development Authority and another vs. the State of Karnataka and others [Civil Appeal Nos.7661-7663/2018];
(ii) Offshore Holdings Private Limited vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others (2011) 3 SCC 139;
(iii) H. Guruswamy and others vs. A. Krishnaiah Since deceased by LRs. Civil Appeal No.317/2025
(iv) Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D. Bhagwat and others (1976) 1 SCC 700; and
(v) V.T Krishnamoorthy vs. State of Karnataka ILR 1991 Kar. 1183.-7- WA No. 4718 of 2016
5. Sri Rohan Hosmath, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that the land in question forms part of Hulimavu Village. It was submitted that the appellant had issued a preliminary notification dated 08.09.1987 in respect of an extent of 524 acres 09 guntas, and a final notification was issued only in respect of 388 acres 09 guntas. It was further submitted that the layout was formed only to an extent of 31 acres 02 guntas.
5.1 The learned counsel further submitted that though the award was passed on 18.10.1993, the award notice was issued to one Jayaramappa and not to the present respondent. It was further submitted that, though the appellant claims to have taken possession of the property under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the mahazar said to have been drawn for taking physical possession is not substantiated, and respondent No.2 continues to remain in physical possession of the property even till date.
5.2 The learned counsel also submitted that unless possession is actually taken and the same is established to the satisfaction of the Court, the property will not vest with the Government merely on the issuance of a notification under -8- WA No. 4718 of 2016 Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel further submitted that there has been substantial failure in the implementation of the scheme, considering the total extent of the layout formed vis-à-vis the total extent of land notified under the preliminary and final notifications. 5.3 The learned counsel further submitted that, as the factum of passing of the award or taking of actual physical possession has not been demonstrated, the entire acquisition stands lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 5.4 The learned counsel further submitted that a series of writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition forming part of the very same notifications in question, and those writ petitions were allowed by quashing the acquisition. The said orders have attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was further submitted that the BDA had unsuccessfully carried the said orders in appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5.5 The learned counsel further submitted that the acquisition deserves to be quashed on the ground of parity. It was further submitted that the land in question is in no way connected with the layout formed in an extent of 31 acres 02 guntas. The said -9- WA No. 4718 of 2016 land has remained as an isolated parcel and cannot be utilised for the purpose of the scheme for which it was notified for acquisition. It was also submitted that the witnesses to the mahazar are not identifiable.
5.6 Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the filing of a reference under Section 18(3) of the LA Act would not take away the right to challenge the acquisition if, subsequently, either the scheme or the acquisition has lapsed. The learned counsel also submitted that the compensation paid can always be directed to be refunded.
5.7 In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies on the judgments in the case of Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka and another4 and Honnappa vs. State of Karnataka and others5 and Bangalore Development Authority and another vs. Sri Honnappa and another6.
6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers. 4 WA No.4718/2016 (LA-BDA), dated 21.06.2021. 5 WP No.55991/2015 (LA-BDA), dated 18.09.2017. 6 WA No.6936/2017 (LA-BDA), dated 16.08.2018.
- 10 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016Analysis
7. Respondent No.2 has claimed ownership of land bearing Sy. No. 21/1B, measuring 28 guntas, situated at Hulimavu Village, Bengaluru South Taluk. A preliminary notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act was issued, and thereafter, a final notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act was issued on 28.07.1990. The said notifications are produced at Annexures- A and B. In the notification issued under Section 17, respondent No.2 was shown as kathedar / anubhavdar. Similarly, in the notification issued under Section 19, respondent No.1 was shown as kathedar / anubhavdar.
8. The grievance of respondent No.2 is two fold. Firstly, respondent No.2 was not issued any notice prior to the passing of the award. Secondly, possession of the land was not taken. The filing of reference application seeking enhancement of compensation, itself shall not prove issue of notice before passing of award or possession taken.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant produced the records to support his submission that notice had been issued. However, as could be seen from the carbon copy of the notice,
- 11 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016the same is addressed to H. R. Jayaramappa, who appears to be the previous kathedar. The learned counsel for the BDA invited the attention of this Court to the xerox copy of the notice said to have been issued to respondent No.2. On a bare perusal, it is evident that the name of respondent No.2 has been inserted by deleting the name of H. R. Jayaramappa. Though the first pages of both notices are different, the second pages are identical except for the change in the name. Except for the name and address of respondent No.2, identical endorsements are found on page No.2 of both notices, which appear to be xerox copies.
10. Having perused the records, we find it unsafe to hold that the award notice was issued to respondent No.2. In the absence of the original notice or any other corroborative evidence, we are constrained to hold that the issuance of the award notice is not established. Be that as it may, respondent No.2 had preferred an application under Section 18 of the LA Act seeking enhancement of compensation before the Reference Court. This clearly indicates that respondent No.2 was aware of the passing of the award.
- 12 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016
11. Section 16 of the LA Act reads as under;
"16. Power to take possession When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government] free from all encumbrances."
12. The land vests absolutely with the Government, free from all encumbrances, after possession of the land is taken. The appellant - BDA claims that, along with the award notice dated 26.10.1993, a notice to handover possession of the land dated 16.11.1993 was also issued. When the noticee failed to hand over possession, the same was stated to have been taken on 16.11.1993 in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Respondent No.2 has disputed the service of the award notice dated 26.10.1993 as well as the correctness of the mahazar notice dated 16.11.1993. As the original records were made available to the Court by the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the mahazar notice. On such perusal, we have noticed certain irregularities and peculiarities, which are required to be stated herein.
13. On perusal of the mahazar, it is seen that it records the details of the property and the measurements made, and is
- 13 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016signed by the Revenue Inspector, which is further endorsed by the Surveyor. It is also recorded that, on the same day, possession of the land was handed over to the appellant. The mahazar contains a column to indicate whether possession was taken in the presence or in the absence of the landowner. However, that column has not been marked by the Revenue Inspector. It is surprising to note that the entries are marked by an official of the BDA. We say so for the reason that the BDA official has signed in green ink, and the marking regarding the presence or absence of the landowner is also made in green ink. In that view of the matter, the only possible inference is that the marking was made by an official of the BDA. Such a mark or noting ought to have been made by the person taking possession, i.e., the Revenue Inspector.
14. Another aspect which causes concern is with regard to the mahazar witnesses. The mahazar records the details of the property, its extent, and bears the signature of the Revenue Inspector, stated to have been drawn in the presence of mahazar witnesses. While the details referred to above are found in carbon ink, the signatures of the witnesses appear to be in original ink. When the contents and the signature of the Revenue Inspector are in carbon copy, the reason for the
- 14 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016witnesses having affixed their original signatures directly on such a copy remains unexplained. As the taking of possession is seriously disputed by respondent No.2, the burden lies heavily on the appellant to establish the same. On the face of the record, we are constrained to entertain a serious doubt as to the correctness and genuineness of the mahazar produced before us.
15. On perusal of the mahazar, we notice that the mahazar witnesses are not identifiable. Except for their signatures, no other particulars such as names or addresses are furnished. This deficiency is found in the mahazar, in addition to the other infirmities noticed hereinabove. This Court, in W.P. No.16865/2022, disposed of on 27.01.2025 [H. Nagarajaiah and others vs. State of Karnataka and others], has held that where the mahazar witnesses are not identifiable, the mahazar itself cannot be relied upon. In the present case also, as the mahazar witnesses are not identifiable for want of particulars, the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision squarely applies. We find that the facts in both cases are substantially identical.
- 15 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016
16. In light of our finding in the preceding paragraph regarding the correctness of the award notice and the discrepancies noticed hereinabove, the possession mahazar dated 16.11.1993 appears doubtful and cannot be accepted. The appellant has not produced any corroborative material to establish that actual possession of the land was taken in accordance with law.
17. Having regard to the contention that, along with the award notice, respondent No.2 was issued a notice to hand over possession on 16.11.1993, and that possession was allegedly taken on 16.11.1993 after measurement in the presence of the landowner and witnesses, reliance placed on the judgment in Balwant Narayan Bhagde supra to contend that there is no strict rule or procedure for taking possession is of no assistance to the appellant.
18. In light of the above finding, we hold that possession of the land in question has not been taken in accordance with Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
19. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contemplates vesting of land with the Government free from all encumbrances only after possession is taken. In light of the
- 16 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016finding recorded hereinabove that taking of possession itself is not established, the question of the land vesting with the Government free from all encumbrances does not arise.
20. Respondent No.2 has furnished the details regarding the extent of lands notified. The acquisition covers lands in two villages. Since the land in question is situated within the limits of Hulimavu Village, reference is made only to the extent pertaining to Hulimavu Village. A total extent of 524 acres 09 guntas was notified under the Preliminary Notification, and 388 acres 09 guntas was notified under the Final Notification. Out of the said extent, layout was formed under the scheme only to the extent of 31 acres 02 guntas. On a comparative analysis, it is evident that the area utilized for formation of layout constitutes less than 10% of the total extent of land notified under the Final Notification.
21. Section 27 of the BDA Act reads as under;
"27. 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 19, the Authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of section 36 shall become inoperative."
- 17 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016Section 27 of the BDA Act mandates that the Authority shall substantially execute the scheme within a period of five years from the date of its publication; otherwise, the scheme shall lapse.
22. The formation of layout in an extent of 31 acres 02 guntas is not disputed by the appellant. The utilization of 31 acres 02 guntas out of the finally notified extent of 388 acres 09 guntas, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as substantial execution of the scheme. In that view of the matter, it is to be held that the BDA has failed 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, and hence, the scheme has lapsed. No explanation is forthcoming from the appellant as to why the scheme was not substantially executed within the prescribed period. In the absence of such explanation, the delay in execution of the scheme is attributable to the Authority. The only contention urged on behalf of the BDA is that even if the scheme has lapsed, the land vests with the BDA in view of Section 16 of the LA Act. In light of our finding on the possession mahazar, such contention is untenable.
- 18 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016
23. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has pleaded parity and invited the attention of this Court to various orders wherein the notifications were quashed on the ground that the scheme had lapsed. It is further submitted that the BDA had unsuccessfully challenged those orders before the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is stated that the lands involved in those writ petitions are adjoining the land in question. Learned counsel further contends that, in view of the quashing of acquisition in respect of neighbouring lands, the land in question has become an isolated pocket and is unsuitable for formation of layout. The said submission and the details placed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 are not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
24. For the sake of brevity, the details of the orders passed in the writ petitions, writ appeals, and special leave petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, along with the survey numbers involved, are tabulated herein below:
Survey No. Writ Date Writ Date Special Date Petition Appeal Leave Petition 21/1C2 5507/2014 21/04/2014 1274/2015 26/11/2020 ------- ------ 45, 46/1, 17421- 16/12/2013 ------ ------- ------- -------
51/1, 50/2, 32/2012 and
21/1C1, connected
21/1C3, matters
21/1C6
- 19 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016
47/2 55991/2015 19/09/2017 6936/2017 16/08/2018 19776/2019 12/10/2022
12/1 20172/2014 18/08/2017 ------- --------- --------- ---------
18/2 21641/2012 12/02/2016 --------- --------- --------- ---------
13/2, 13/3, 16383/2014 25/04/2014 374/2022 21/03/2023 38202/2023 Pending
13/4, 13/5,
13/6
81/4A, 11125/2014 29/09/2015 941/2021 Pending --------- ---------
81/4B & 12140-
63/2014
48/3 34108/2013 29/11/2013 --------- --------- --------- ---------
9 2370/2015 05/07/2021 113/2016 12/01/2017 --------- ---------
[The current Writ Appeal has arisen out of WP No.38981/2014 appealed in WA No.4718/2016 reviewed in RP No.236/2021 and SLP Nos.4523-4524/2023 pertaining to Sy. No.21/1B.] The lands involved in the aforesaid writ petitions are adjacent to the land in question and form part of the very same notifications.
25. At the instance of the landowners of various survey numbers, the acquisition in respect of those lands has been declared as having lapsed and such declaration has attained finality. Among other reasons, respondent No.2 is also entitled to similar relief on the principle of parity. In the absence of any distinguishing features either in fact or in law, we find no reason to take a different view.
- 20 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016
26. In our considered view, the lands notified under the impugned notifications have already been quashed by this Court, inter alia, on the ground that the scheme had lapsed. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, entitled to a similar relief on the principle of parity. The appellant has not made out any demonstrable ground, either on facts or in law, to take a different view in the present case.
27. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the possession of the land is with the BDA. This contention is seriously disputed by respondent No.2. In view of our finding on the correctness of the mahazar, such contention is untenable. Moreover, no material is placed on record to establish that the appellant is in possession of the land in question.
28. The other contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that respondent No.2 has accepted the award by filing a reference application for enhancement of compensation and by withdrawing the compensation amount. However, this Court, in W.P. No.55991/2015, concerning the very same notifications relating to Sy.No.47/2 of Hulimavu Village, has held that a challenge to the acquisition is maintainable
- 21 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016notwithstanding the receipt of compensation, and that re- deposit of the compensation amount along with interest can be directed, particularly in cases where the surrounding lands are de-notified or excluded from acquisition.
29. In the present case, it is the submission of respondent No.2 that the acquisition proceedings in respect of neighbouring lands, including his own, have been quashed and the said orders have attained finality, thereby rendering the land in question an isolated pocket. This Court in W.P. No.55991/2015 has categorically held that acquisition cannot be sustained when the land stands as an isolated island, a view with which we are in agreement, and which is squarely applicable to the present case.
30. The appellant has contended that, subsequent to the acquisition of land, sites have been formed and allotted to eligible members. It is submitted that, as rights have been created in favour of third parties, it cannot be held that the scheme was not executed, nor can the acquisition be set aside. In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied upon the allotment letters issued in favour of the allottees. However, the allotment, by itself, does not create any right in favour of
- 22 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016the allottee unless the title to the allotted site is transferred in accordance with law. We find that there is no material to indicate that such transfer of title has taken place. Hence, the allotment letters, in themselves, cannot be relied upon to sustain the acquisition proceedings, which are otherwise unsustainable.
31. This submission is also untenable for yet another reason. Respondent No.2 has placed on record sufficient material indicating that the adjacent or neighbouring lands have either been dropped from acquisition or the acquisition thereof has been quashed. In such circumstances, the contention of the appellant cannot be appreciated, for if the adjoining lands are no longer available for formation of the layout, it cannot be said that the layout could have been formed. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, the land in question has remained as an isolated island.
32. Now, let us examine the judgments relied on by the respective parties.
33. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Offshore Holdings Private Limited supra to contend that
- 23 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016even if the scheme lapses, the acquisition may not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the provisions of the BDA Act, has laid down the law in this regard. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are extracted at paragraphs 37, 38, and 39, which read as follows:
"37. The provisions of Section 27 of the BDA Act mandate the Authority to execute the scheme, substantially, within five years from the date of publication of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 19. 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. The provisions of Section 27 have a direct nexus with the provisions of Section 36 which provide that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, so far as they are applicable to the State Act, shall govern the cases of acquisition otherwise than by agreement. 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.
38. On a conjunctive reading of the provisions of Sections 27 and 36 of the State Act, it is clear that where a scheme lapses, the acquisition may not. This, of course, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. 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
- 24 -WA No. 4718 of 2016
terminate as a result of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act. An argument to the contrary cannot be accepted for the reason that on vesting, the land stands transferred and vested in the State/Authority free from all encumbrances and such status of the property is incapable of being altered by fiction of law either by the State Act or by the Central Act. Both these Acts do not contain any provision in terms of which property, once and absolutely, vested in the State can be reverted to the owner on any condition. There is no reversal of the title and possession of the State. However, this may not be true in cases where acquisition proceedings are still pending and land has not been vested in the Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act.
39. What is meant by the language of Section 27 of the BDA Act i.e. "provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative", is that if the acquisition proceedings are pending and where the scheme has lapsed, further proceedings in terms of Section 36(3) of the BDA Act i.e. with reference to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act shall become inoperative. Once the land which, upon its acquisition, has vested in the State and thereafter vested in the Authority in terms of Section 36(3); such vesting is incapable of being disturbed except in the case where the Government issues a notification for revesting the land in itself, or a corporation, or a local authority in cases where the land is not required by the Authority under the provisions of Section 37(3) of the BDA Act."
(underlining mine)
- 25 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016
34. In light of the above, even if the scheme lapses, the acquisition may not necessarily lapse, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 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 merely by reason of the scheme having lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act. However, the contention of the appellant regarding vesting of the land is untenable, as vesting is contingent upon the taking of possession. In the present case, taking possession of the land has not been established, and the document relied upon to establish possession is not trustworthy. In that view of the matter, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
35. Reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in V.T. Krishnamurthy supra, to contend that a challenge to the acquisition is not maintainable after filing an application for enhancement of compensation, is of no assistance to the appellant. A similar contention was negatived by this Court in W.P. No.55991/2015 arising out of the very same impugned notifications, which, as submitted, has attained finality. In the said writ petition, this Court, while dealing with neighbouring
- 26 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016lands covered under the same notification, held that the acquisition had lapsed as the scheme was not substantially executed, upon comparing the extent of the layout formed with the total extent of land notified.
36. This Court also took note of the de-notification or exclusion of similarly situated lands from the scheme, which stand on the same footing as the land of respondent No.2. The said order was assailed in W.A. No.6936/2017 by the BBMP and came to be dismissed on 16.08.2018. The Special Leave Petition in SLP (C) No.19776/2019 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.10.2022. Similar orders have been passed in W.P. Nos.20172/2014, 21641/2012, 16383- 16387/2014, 11125/2014 & 12140-63/2014, 34108/2013, 2370/2015 and other connected matters, all of which were filed between 2014 and 2017. The orders quashing the acquisition have attained finality and the respective lands stand excluded from the scheme. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant that the writ petition is belated and not maintainable is untenable and is accordingly rejected.
37. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
- 27 -
WA No. 4718 of 2016Office is directed to return the original records to the learned counsel for the appellant.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV