[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmi @ Neela vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.42522/2014 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMI @ NEELA
W/O KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VADDARAPALYA,
KOTHNUR, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 061.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. N. SATHYAVATHY
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE AND HUSBAND,
MR. K.N. NAGARAJA SETTY,
S/O LATE K.N.NAGARAJA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.308, 2ND BLOCK BDA,
-2-
J.P. NAGAR 8TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078.
4. DR. K.V. RAMESH BABU
S/O LATE K.P. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
SITE NO.299, EIGHT PHASE,
NO.II BLOCK, J.P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 078.
5. K. NAGARAJU
S/O K.S. KRISHNAPPA,
SITE NO.333, NO.II BLOCK,
J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078.
6. K.S. SUBRAMANYA
S/O LATE SUBRAMANYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
SITE NO.333, 45TH CROSS,
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 011.
7. B.K. GOPALAKRISHNA
S/O B. KICHHIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2272, I FLOOR,
K.R. ROAD, BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 070.
8. MR. K.P. NARAYANA RAO
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED
BY HIS SON MR. K.N. JANARDHANA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.5/1, 6TH CROSS,
LAKSHMIPURAM, ULSOOR,
BANGALORE-560 008.
9. SMT. RADHA CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE C.R. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.32, 'C' CROSS, ASHOK AVENUE,
K.R. GARDEN, MURGESHPALYA,
BANGALORE-560 017.
-3-
10. MR. M.G. RAMAPPA HEGDE
S/O LATE M.L. GIDDAPPA HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.203, 7TH CROSS,
PADMINI ENCLAVE, YAJAMANAPPA
LAYOUT, NAGASHETTYHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 094.
11. ANUPAMA RAJ
W/O D. SUBBARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
1017, 11TH MAIN, HANUMANTHNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 019.
12. LAKSHMI P. PRAKASH
S/O P.V. PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO.782, 36TH A CROSS, 22ND MAIN,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 041.
13. VIJAYALAKSHMI V.
W/O DR. C.N. GUNASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.18, 4TH A MAIN ROAD,
OBALAPPA GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560 082.
14. JUDIA DANIEL
S/O LATE COL. DANIEL VARGHESE,
D/O T.T. JOSEPH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.594, 2ND CROSS, KPC LAYOUT,
KASAVANAHALLI, CARMALARAM POST,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041.
15. MR. SOMASHEKAR B.C.
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED
BY HIS WIFE SMT. M. PADMA,
NO.56/1, 6TH CROSS, 1 MAIN ROAD,
SOMESHWARA, BANGALORE-560 009.
-4-
16. MR. PRABHAKAR
S/O LATE GURUVAIAH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
MIG 243/2, OPP. SBI BANK,
NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580 025.
17. SMT. SHEETAL MADDODI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
W/O SRI SHIVAKUMAR HOSANGADI,
R/AT NO.SB-205, SAPTHAGIRI
NIVAS APARTMENTS, A.R. LAYOUT,
28TH 'A' MAIN, 18TH CROSS,
J.P. NAGAR, SOMESHWARA,
BANGALORE-560 078.
18. DR. SUREKHA PAI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
W/O DR ANANTH PAI KALSANK,
R/AT NO.4, HAYAGREEVA NAGARA,
INDRALI, KUNJIBETTU POST,
UDUPI-576 102.
REP. BY HER GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI. HARISH BHANDARY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O MADHAVA BHANDARY,
R/AT NO.48, SURAKSHA RESIDENCY,
4TH CROSS, K.R. LAYOUT,
J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078.
19. SRI N. NARASIMHA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O SRI K. NARAYANAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.1292, 5TH CROSS,
T.K. LAYOUT, 4TH PHASE,
MYSORE-570 023.
20. K. MOPUR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O SRI K. NARAYANAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.157/48/1,
2ND CROSS, T. RAMAIAH GARDEN,
-5-
SOS CHILDREN VILLAGE POST,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
21. RAVIKIRAN .M
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O MARISHETTY,
RESIDING AT NO.172,
KAMADHENU NILAYA, SHEELA MARGA,
SIDDARTHANAGAR,
MYSORE-570 011.
[R3 TO R21 IMPLEADED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 20.01.2020]
22. CHANDRAKUMAR .N
S/O NAGARAJ,
R/AT NO.469 B, 15TH B CROSS,
IDEAL HOMES, TOWNSHIP RR NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 098.
[R22 IMPLEADED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 07.02.2023]
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI AJAYKUMAR M., ADVOCATE, FOR R-2;
SRI R. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE, FOR R-5, R-6, R-8, R-10, R-12,
R-15 & R-16;
SRI HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3, R-4, R-7,
R-9, R-11, R-13 & R-14;
SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SMT. RACHITHA RAJSHEKAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-17 TO R-20;
SMT. M. INDIRA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-21;
SRI SHARADI S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-22;
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT; DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS ANNEXURE-F AND
ANNEXURE-G DATED 08.11.2012 AND 19.05.2014 RESPECTIVELY.
-6-
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
-7-
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 8 th
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
-8-
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.
-9-
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 independent of the scheme and
that the scheme, on the petitioner's own showing, suffered
from foundational defects, stood diluted in subsequent
notification and was never substantially implemented in its
original form. It is contended that the original acquisition set
to cover a very large area was progressively reduced and
that the petitioner's land did not continue in the latter's
validly sanctioned notifications. It is further contended that
the private respondents are only subsequent
allotees/purchasers through BDA and cannot enlarge the
scope of writ petition into a title trial. The attempt to dispute
whether occupancy rights was really granted to Gullappa in
Sy. No. 24 or whether the grant pertained only to Sy. No.
- 10 -
36/6A is according to the learned Senior Counsel, a pure title
dispute which cannot be conclusively decided in writ petition.
The petitioner specifically contends that the reliance on FIR,
charge sheet, enquiry report and forensic material only
amounts to converting the present proceedings into a roving
and fishing enquiry which is impermissible. Learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner also relies on the earlier order by
this Court dated 21.04.2016 contending that this Court had
found that the petitioner was in possession and the
acquisition had lapsed. It is contended that the later
Commissioner's report only strengthens the petitioner's case
by demonstrating that even decades later, substantial
portion remained vacant.
2.2. In support of her contention she relied upon the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
R. Adikesavulu Naidu and Others vs State of Karnataka
and Others1 (Adikesavulu Naidu) to contend that the
similarly situated persons had approached this Court seeking
1
ILR 2011 KAR 3657
- 11 -
to quash the notifications. This Court held that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject lands which
are covered under the preliminary notification and the final
notifications are quashed but which have not vested in the
State Government within a period of 5 years from the date of
issue of the final notification. The same is confirmed in Writ
Appeal No. 15015/2011 and connected matters referred by
the BDA holding that the scheme has lapsed and has
attained finality and binds the authority. By another decision
in the case of BDA And Another vs Ramaswamy Reddy2
(Ramaswamy Reddy) wherein, the controversy involved in
the appeal was held to be squarely covered by the judgment
in Writ Appeal No. 15015/2011 and other connected matters.
In another judgment, in the case of BDA And Another vs A.
Rajeshekar3 wherein, the writ appeal also came to be
disposed of on basis of reliance on the decision of
Adikesavulu Naidu holding that the land situated adjacent
to the suit property having been held to be lapsed for non-
2
W.A 894/2021, DD 31.03l.2023
3
WA 266/2023, DD 31.03.2023
- 12 -
implementation of the scheme. Then, BDA and Another vs
B.R. Saraswathi and Another4 (B.R. Sarawathi) again
which came to be disposed of holding that the controversy
involved in this appeal is clearly covered by the judgment in
Writ Appeal 15015/2011 and in the another judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench in the case of K. R. Anandamma and
Others vs State of Karnataka and Others5 wherein the
final notification dated 07.10.1999 was challenged and the
preliminary notification and the impugned final notification
was quashed, confirmed in Writ Appeal 3825/2005 c/w WA
2622-24/2004 by order dated 31.10.2011 holding that the
issue involved is squarely covered and the order in the said
Writ Appeal has been confirmed by the Apex Court in
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 5555-5557/2012.
2.3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that in respect of the enquiry report which is
adverse, it is only a fact finding exercise conducted in the
course of these proceedings and unless the Land Tribunal
4
WA 862/2021, DD 06.02.2023
5
WP 46002/1999 c/w WP 46004-05/1999
- 13 -
order dated 05.09.1979 is set aside by competent forum, the
same continues to hold the field and cannot be nullified by an
administrative inquiry.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the BDA would
contend that the acquisition is complete, that the possession
was taken and the award was passed and the compensation
was deposited in the Court. Learned counsel further pleads
non-maintainability and contends that the petitioner cannot
claim de-notification as a matter of right. It is further
contended that the petitioner's predecessors have
participated in the reference proceedings and cannot now
turn and seek to unsettle the acquisition. Learned counsel
places reliance on the Court Commissioner's report to
contend that the layout has been formed, sites have been
carved out, constructions have arisen and third party
interests have crystallized and therefore the Court shall not
grant a declaration of lapse in this stage.
- 14 -
4. Sri P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the private respondents/allottees, submits that the
petitioner's entire claim is founded on a fabricated extension
of the Land Tribunal order. According to them, the original
proceedings in LRF No. 1651/74-75 related only to Sy No.
36/6A and not to Sy No. 24, that the premium and the
compensation record refers only to Sy. No. 36/6A and that
the inclusion of Sy. No. 24 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas is a
later interpolation. It is contended that the history of Land
Tribunal proceedings, the reference proceedings and the
later complaint, charge sheet and enquiry ordered by this
Court to establish that the petitioner's foundation is tainted
by fraud. It is further submitted that Meenakshi and D.
Nataraj, who were the real owners of land in Sy. No. 24, had
themselves challenged the acquisition earlier and were
granted compensation site. According to the private
respondents, this shows that the acquisition in Sy. No. 24
stood recognized and attained finality. It is also contended
that the petitioner or her predecessor never independently
- 15 -
challenged the acquisition at a proper stage and therefore
cannot now seek to declare a declaration of lapse after the
third party rights have intervened. On the enquiry report, it
is submitted that the same was not a private document but a
report called for by order of this Court and therefore
deserves serious weight. It is contended that since the report
is adverse to the petitioner and concludes that Sy. No. 24
was not genuinely part of the Land Tribunal proceedings, it is
urged that the petitioner is disentitled to discretionary relief.
5. This Court has carefully considered the rival
contentions and perused the material on record.
6. The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether in the facts of the case, the Court can
adjudicate the dispute as to whether occupancy
rights were truly granted in favour of Gullapa in
respect of Sy. No. 24 measuring 2 acres 24
guntas and whether that dispute is outside the
permissible scope of writ jurisdiction?
- 16 -
(ii) Whether the enquiry report obtained pursuant to
the order of this Court during the pendency of
these proceedings can be treated as conclusive
against the petitioner so as to defeat the writ
petition?
(iii) Whether the existence of a notice/site owner
coupled with the Court Commissioner's report
showing formation of sites and constructions is
sufficient to hold the scheme was substantially
implemented?
(iv) Whether on overall material the acquisition
scheme in so far as the petitioner's land is
concerned has lapsed?
7. Point Nos. (i) and (ii) are taken up together. The
argument of the private respondents is that the occupancy
rights was never granted in favour of Gullappa for Sy. No. 24
measuring 2 acres 24 guntas and that the original
proceedings pertained only to Sy. No. 36/6A. In substance,
their case is that Sy. No. 24 was introduced later by
- 17 -
interpolation. This Court is unable to accept the contention to
finally adjudicate the issue in the present proceedings. The
reason is straightforward, the controversy raised by the
private respondents goes to the root of the title and identity
of the land. To decide whether the original grant covered Sy.
No. 24 or only Sy. No. 36/6A, this Court would necessarily
have to undertake examination of the original Land Tribunal
records, mutation records, revenue proceedings, premium
payment records and other connected materials and
thereafter assess rival explanation as to the interpolation,
fabrication or mistake. Such exercise would require
appreciation of evidence in a manner wholly aligned to the
writ jurisdiction. More importantly, the Land Tribunal order
dated 05.09.1979 has not been set aside by any competent
judicial forum. The petitioner's amended writ petition
proceed on the basis that the order and consequent entries
the private respondents may very well challenge the same
before the competent forum. But so long as the order
remains formally subsisting, this Court cannot, in a writ
- 18 -
jurisdiction centered on acquisition and lapse, record a final
finding that the order is non est merely on the basis of a
disputed material.
8. It is true that the enquiry was not a private exercise
exercised by one party, but was ordered by this Court during
pendency of this proceedings. It is equally true that the
report according to the respondents is adverse to the
petitioner indicates that survey number was not genuinely
part of the Land Tribunal proceedings. This Court cannot
ignore the circumstance. However, the legal effect of such
report must be carefully understood. The Tribunal's order
sought to be questioned is 05.09.1979. The enquiry report is
of the year 2025, nearly four decades later. What the enquiry
furnishes is a fact finding administrative opinion on basis of
the records then available. It does not, by itself set aside the
Tribunal order nor does it automatically annul the revenue
consequences following thereon. The report may raise a
serious doubt and it may provide the foundation for
appropriate proceedings before the competent forum. But it
- 19 -
cannot in and of itself displace a subsisting statutory order
and furnish the sole basis to non-suit the petitioner in a writ
petition which principal issue is lapse of acquisition.
9. If this Court were to treat the enquiry report as
conclusive and decisive, it would effectively be converting a
writ proceedings into final adjudication of fraud and title
without trial. This would be impermissible. Equally this Court
cannot pretend that the report does not exist, the correct
approach close eyes to the report on record, its findings are
prima facie not conclusive for purposes of the present writ
petition. Hence this Court holds that the enquiry report
though relevant cannot be treated as conclusive so as to
defeat the petitioner's case in the proceedings and all issues
arising thereupon are kept open to be decided by the
competent forum. This Court holds that the dispute over
occupancy rights were in fact granted in favour of Gullappa
in Sy. No. 24 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas is a matter that
cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present writ
- 20 -
petition proceedings and is left open to the competent
forum.
10. Point Nos. (iii) and (iv) are taken up together in
order to avoid repetition of facts. Now this brings the Court
to the ultimate issue. The significant legal and factual
development of the scheme over time is to be considered. It
is stated that the original acquisition/scheme lacked proper
approval, that 1994 final notification was quashed in earlier
notification, the fresh notifications were thereafter issued,
that the scheme shrunk from a very large extent to much
smaller extent and that the petitioner's land did not continue
in the latter valid scheme. Whether every part of that
submission is to be accepted in absolute term need not be
decided for the present purpose. What is clear is that the
scheme did not continue in a stable and uniform manner but
retreated legal setbacks and reductions. The earlier order
dated 21.04.2016 in this very Writ Petition, though set aside
on appeal for wanting of hearing of two allottees, but also
recorded findings in favour of the petitioner on possession
- 21 -
and lapse. This Court in Adikesavulu has held at para
Nos.128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138,
139, 140, 141 and 142 as under :
"128. Be that as it may, even on the admitted
factual position and as per the record, the claim of the
BDA if at all is one of its ability to implement the
scheme in respect of an extent of 201 acres 29 guntas
as against the initial plan covering an extent of 1009
acres, this again being only a claim and not based on
any material placed before the Court for examination
or for confirmation and on the contrary, it is the
admitted fact that in respect of 216 acres 33 guntas,
the Government has gone on issuing Notifications
under Section 48 of the LA Act withdrawing from the
acquisition proceedings in respect of lands covered
under these Notifications.
129. It is also admitted that an extent of 80
acres 28 guntas have in fact been given for group
housing schemes. It is also a further fact stated in the
additional statement that an extent of 145 acres 30
guntas of Government land has not been handed over
to the BDA. It is also admitted that in respect of an
extent of 117 acres 10 guntas, while no award has
been passed at all, such lands are said to be covered
by unauthorized layouts, comprising of built up area,
- 22 -
some parts under litigation before the Court and
impracticality of utilization of land etc.
130. In this state of chaos and confusion
prevailing about the manner of implementation of the
scheme, insofar as the subject land in Sy. No. 30 is
concerned, it is admitted that the Award is passed
only on 25.1.2010 and possession is sought to be
taken only during April 2010. From this state of
affairs, it is clear that the scheme is definitely not
implemented in respect of the subject land in Sy. No.
30. While it is not clear in which other land and to
what extent the scheme has been implemented and
even as to the meaning of the implementation of the
scheme, things are in a state of confusion, petitioners
assert that they continue to remain in possession of
this survey number as purchasers in the year 2004-05
and to the extent of land indicated in their conveyance
deeds.
131. From the above admitted facts, it becomes
crystal clear that even after the expiry of a period of
five years from the date of last final notification i.e.,
on 17.10.1999, the scheme is not implemented in any
manner or to any extent and if at all an
implementation even as per the BDA in the year 2010-
11 is only in respect of the extent of 201 acres 29
guntas which is by no stretch of imagination, an
- 23 -
implementation of the substantial nature or a
substantial implementation of the scheme as is
contemplated under Section 27 of the BDA Act.
Section 27 of the BDA Act is inevitably attracted as
implementation in respect of the extent which is
slightly a little more than one-fifth of the original
extent of land in respect of which scheme had been
prepared and proposed and sent to the Government
for approval, is never a substantial implementation of
the scheme and with the scheme having lapsed after
five years from the year 1999, there is absolutely no
scope or possibility in law for the BDA to implement
the scheme any more as of now, and at any rate, not
by utilizing such of the statutory provisions which are
no more available to the BDA in terms of Section 36 of
the BDA Act as a consequence of the operation of
Section 27 of the BDA Act.
132. The implication is that the passing of the
award in the year 2010 is an action without the
support of Section 12 of the LA Act and likewise taking
of possession thereafter also in April 2010 under
section 16 of the LA Act are both actions without
support of law and cannot be sustained. Therefore,
there is no more possibility in law for the BDA to take
any coercive action as against persons found to be in
possession of this survey number for the purpose of
taking possession of this land whether by the State
- 24 -
Government or by the BDA for the further
implementation of the scheme as the scheme itself
has lapsed and the very acquisition was only for the
purpose of implementation of the scheme.
133. With the admitted position being that
subject land had not yet been taken possession of
before the scheme lapsed in terms of section 27 of the
BDA Act, the land has never vested in the State
Government and in respect of such lands which have
not vested in the State Government prior to lapsing of
the scheme and there being no possibility of
implementation of the scheme thereafter and also
there being no possibility to continue the acquisition
proceedings on and after the stage of issue of
declaration under Section 19[1] of the BDA Act, it is
inevitable that even the preliminary and final
Notifications under Section 17[1] and 19 of the BDA
Act have also to be quashed inevitably in respect of
such lands which had not vested in the State
Government before the lapsing of the scheme and it is
as though no acquisition proceedings had ever taken
place in respect of such lands.
134. Though the question may arise as to the
consequence that befalls on such of those lands which
had already been taken possession of and had vested
in the State Government, prior to the lapsing of the
- 25 -
scheme, such a situation not arising in the present
Writ Petitions, it is not necessary to discuss that legal
position for deciding these Writ Petitions as insofar as
the present Writ Petitions are concerned, it will
become an exercise in academics.
135. While certain additional prayers are sought
in terms of the Amendment sought to the writ
petitions and serious objections have also been raised
on behalf of the BDA, objections have been overruled
as noticed earlier, but nevertheless, insofar as the
prayer for declaration regarding lapsing of the scheme
is concerned, it is made clear that the lapsing of the
scheme is by the operation of the provisions of Section
27 of the BDA Act i.e., due to the operation of law in
any fact situation where the scheme is not
implemented in a substantial manner within a period
of five years from the date of issue of the final
Notification and not because of a declaration to be
made by this Court.
136. Though there is considerable divergence of
judicial opinion in understanding the phrase
'substantial implementation of the scheme', by no
stretch of imagination or by no stretch of elongation of
the limits of law, an implementation of the scheme in
respect of only about one-fifth of the original land area
and that too 23 years after the issue of the
- 26 -
preliminary Notification can ever be taken as a
substantial implementation of the scheme as in the
present case. Whether this Court expressly issues a
declaration in this regard or not, it has already
happened due to the operation of law and if at all it is
only in recognition of this legal position, the further
consequence are to be noticed and appropriate orders
passed in the context. Petitioners claiming that they
have acquired interest in the subject lands subsequent
to lapsing of the scheme or in the vicinity there about,
it cannot also be said that they have no locus to
maintain the present Writ Petitions as discussed
earlier and cannot be denied an appropriate order by
merely throwing out the petition by this Court shutting
eyes to the operation of law.
137. The situation in the present Writ Petitions
are not much different to the situation as was noticed
by this Court in WP No. 1739 of 2008 disposed of by
this Court on 13.7.2011 and at any rate the legal
consequence are the same. However, as in the
present case, in view of the stand put forth by the
BDA that it has implemented the scheme to some
extent and if in fact subject land had also vested in
the State Government and had been handed over to
the BDA before the lapsing of the scheme and if there
is no other impediment for the BDA to deal with the
subject land, perhaps even otherwise the BDA can
- 27 -
continue to work in respect of that extent of land even
though the scheme as of now has lapsed as any land
that comes in to the possession of the BDA has
necessarily to be utilized for a development scheme
and in consonance with the master plan that it has
prepared as the BDA happens to be not only the
development authority for the Bangalore metropolitan
area, but also the planning Authority for this area.
This perhaps is the only possibility in law insofar as
the aspect of mitigation of consequence of operation
of law is concerned as that is not to the detriment or
peril of the petitioners who are before this Court
complaining of high handed action on the part of the
officials of the BDA.
138. It also follows as a consequence, that the
State Government or the BDA or its officials or agents
acting on their behalf cannot disturb peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the subject land in which
the petitioners claim to be in possession forming part
of Sy. No. 30 of Kothanur Village and therefore the
respondents are hereby restrained from taking any
adverse action otherwise not permitted in law as
against the petitioners in respect of the subject land.
139. It is however made clear that the BDA
being also a planning authority, it is nevertheless
entitled to ensure that any development or land user
- 28 -
in the area is concerned, it is all done only in
consonance with the master plan and also to fall in
line with the plan in the scheme as is envisaged for
the area by the planning authority. It is the duty of
the BDA to ensure compliance with this requirement
about all land owners and land users.
140. In the light of above discussion, answers to
the questions as raised above, are as under:
Question A scheme proposed by BDA if is not
No 1: substantially implemented within a
period of five years as is mandated
under Section 27 of the BDA Act and
has lapsed, there is no question of
Court permitting further
implementation of the scheme, if it is
to the detriment of any person and
such a person has sought for relief
before Court; and
Question When once the scheme lapsed as
No 2: per the provisions of Section 27 of
the BDA Act, there cannot be any
further proceedings for acquisition
either, and if the subject land sought
to be acquired had not vested in the
State Government before lapsing of
- 29 -
the scheme, to the extent of the
lands not vested in the State
Government before the lapsing of
the scheme, even the acquisition
proceedings lapse, as the acquisition
was only for the purpose of
implementation of the scheme and
to the extent of land not yet vested
in the State Government, the
scheme having lapsed, there is no
possibility of the implementation of
the scheme thereafter.
141. In the result, a writ of certiorari is issued to
quash the acquisition proceedings in respect of subject
lands which are covered under the preliminary
Notification and final Notifications, but which have not
vested in the State Government within the period of
five years from the date of issue of the final
Notification.
142. The BDA is restrained from further
implementation of the lapsed scheme if it is to be to
the detriment and adverse to the interest of the land
owners whose lands have, as a consequence of this
order, revert to them."
- 30 -
11. The appeal against the said order in Writ Appeal
No. 15015/2011 preferred was confirmed and at para Nos. 8
and 9 it has been held as under :
"8. We have considered the submissions made
on both sides and have perused the record. Ordinarily
we would have adverted to the merits of the
contentions raised by Learned counsel for the parties.
However, it is not necessary for us to do so in the
facts of the case. Admittedly, the Authority had
preferred writ appeals viz., W.A.No.2823-2824/2014,
W.A.No.2183/2017 and W.A.No.3353/2016. The
aforesaid appeals were decided by a division bench of
this court vide judgments dated 08.06.2017,
20.06.2017 and 14.09.2017 respectively. It is also
not in dispute that in the aforesaid appeals, the issue
which arose for consideration before various division
benches of this court was with regard to lapsing of
scheme viz., J.P.Nagar VIII Stage. Admittedly, the
various division benches of this court in the aforesaid
intra court appeals have affirmed the findings
recorded by Learned Single Judge, that the scheme
has lapsed. For the facility of reference, para 4 of the
order in one such appeal viz., W.A.No.2823-
2824/2014, is extracted below:
4. Having regard to such finding of fat, we
are of the opinion that the Bengaluru
- 31 -
Development Authority failed to establish that
the possession of the property was taken by
them. We do not, therefore, find any error in the
order declaring the acquisition proceedings
stood lapsed insofar as it relates to the land of
the writ petitioners.
9. It is also pertinent to note that the
aforesaid judgments rendered by various division
benches of this court have been accepted by the
authority and have not been further assailed. It is also
not in dispute that the order dated 14.09.2017 passed
in W.A.No.3353/2016 has been upheld by Hon'ble The
Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petition passed
against judgment of division bench of this court has
been dismissed on 14.09.2017 in SLP (Civil) Diary
No.28329/2019 (BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY VS. SAMPANGI AND ORS.). It is well
settled in law that an order or decision rendered
between the parties binds them. The finding recorded
in the aforesaid judgments that the scheme has
lapsed has attained finality and binds the Authority.
Thus, the issue relating to validity of J.P.Nagar VIII
Stage has attained finality. The land owners are
entitled to parity insofar as their lands in scheme are
concerned. The judgment dated 14.09.2017 passed in
W.A.No.3353/2016 which has been upheld by Hon'ble
The Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary
- 32 -
No.28329/2019 as well as the judgment rendered by
two division benches of this court in W.A.No.2823-
2824/2014 and W.A.No.2183/2017 bind us.
For the aforementioned reasons, it is held that
J.P.Nagar VIII Phase scheme insofar as it pertains to
land of the land owners has lapsed. In the result,
W.A.No.15015/21 is dismissed and the
W.A.No.3518/2011, W.A.No.17970/2011,
W.A.No.1469/2012, W.A.No.1481/2012,
W.A.No.2600/2012, W.A.No.2601/2012,
W.A.No.2602/2012, W.A.No.2603/2012,
W.A.No.2604/2012, W.A.No.2605/2012,
W.A.No.2606/2012, W.A.No.2607/2012,
W.A.No.2608/2012, W.A.No.2609/2012,
W.A.No.2610/2012, W.A.No.2611/2012,
W.A.No.2612/2012, W.A.No.2613/2012,
W.A.No.2614/2012, W.A.No.2615/2012,
W.A.No.2616/2012, W.A.No.2617/2012,
W.A.No.925/2013, W.A.No.230/2015,
W.A.No.2087/2016, W.A.No.198/2021,
W.A.No.493/2021, W.P.No.30970/2010,
W.P.No.31832/2010, W.P.No.31993/2010,
W.P.No.2134/2011, W.P.No.2158/2011,
W.P.No.35313/2011, W.P.No.47155/2011,
W.P.No.2353/2012, W.P.No.2475/2012,
W.P.No.9869/2012, W.P.No.17770/2012,
W.P.No.18111/12, W.P.No.18348/2012,
- 33 -
W.P.No.18604/2012, W.P.No.19197/12,
W.P.No.23215/2012, W.P.No.23450/2012,
W.P.No.23627/12, W.P.No.24064/2012,
W.P.No.24377/2012, W.P.No.49235/2012,
W.P.No.15988/2013 are allowed and judgments
passed by Learned Single Judges in the aforesaid writ
appeals are set aside."
12. Similarly in the cases of Ramaswamy Reddy,
Rajeshekar and Anandamma (supra) this Court has
consistently held that non-implementation of the scheme,
the acquisition in respect of the subject of the writ petition
has stood lapsed.
13. When that circumstances is read together with the
Commissioner's report showing 151 formed sites, 66
constructed sites, 85 vacant sites, the Court is led to a
conclusion that what survived is not the proof of substantial
implementation of the scheme in the sense understood under
the BDA Act, but rather evidence of partial and fragmented
utilisation. The private respondents rely on the earlier
litigation by Meenakshi and D. Nataraj, but their own
- 34 -
contentions indicate that those proceedings resulted not in
general affirmation of acquisition for all purposes and all
persons, but in reliefs confined to those litigation. Those
material does not persuade this Court that the original
acquisition scheme remained intact and uniformly
implemented. The decisive consideration therefore is that the
Court cannot finally try title in Writ Petition. The enquiry
report raises doubts, but it is not conclusive. The
Commissioner's report proves only partial implementation
and overall litigation history shows instability and
fragmentation of the scheme. In such circumstances, the
plea of lapse cannot be rejected merely because some sites
were formed and some allottees exist. Accordingly, the
points framed for consideration (iii) and (iv) is also answered
and the petitioner succeeds on the principal ground that the
scheme insofar as it concerns the petitioner's claim land has
not been shown to have been substantially and cohesively
implemented in law and the acquisition proceedings insofar
as they relate to the petitioner's land are liable to be treated
- 35 -
as lapsed subject to keeping open all the contentions,
questions of title, fraud and validity of the Tribunal's order to
be adjudicated in appropriate forum.
14. This Court holds that the dispute whether
occupancy rights were actually granted to Gullappa in
respect of Sy. No. 24, measuring 2 acres 24 guntas, is a
disputed question of title and extent that cannot be finally
adjudicated in this Writ Petition. The enquiry report obtained
during the pendency of this proceedings, though relevant
and serious, is only a prima facie fact finding report and
cannot be treated as a conclusive against the petitioner or as
an overriding the subsisting Tribunal's order dated
05.09.1979. The Court Commissioner's report establishes
only partial implementation of the scheme and cannot be
treated as a proof of complete and or substantial execution
merely because some sites were formed and some
constructions exist. On the overall material the acquisition
scheme insofar as it relates to the petitioner's land is liable to
be treated as lapsed while leaving open all contentions of
- 36 -
title, fraud, validity of the Tribunal order and third party
claim to be worked out before the competent forum.
Accordingly, the points framed for considerations are
answered and this Court pass the following :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) It is hereby declared that the acquisition
proceedings initiated pursuant to the
preliminary notification dated 23.03.1988 and
final notification dated 19.10.1994 insofar as
they relate to the land claimed by the petitioner
in Sy. No. 24 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas
situated at Kothnur Village, Uttara Halli Hobli,
Bangalore South, as having lapsed.
(iii) At this stage, the validity of the Land Tribunal
order dated 05.09.1979 holds good and the
rights, if any, in respect of the third party
allottees, purchasers, in respect of the sites
formed in layout, are not adjudicated in this
- 37 -
proceedings and are left open to be worked out
in accordance with law.
(iv) It is also clarified that the declaration of lapse
shall not by itself confer title upon the
petitioner and any consequential relief shall be
subject to the outcome of the proceedings
before the competent forum.
Sd/-
______________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
CKL
