7. The learned Single Judge having considered the
submissions, framed the following issues for determination in the
writ petition:
a. Whether petitioners would have locus standi or
subsisting interest to maintain the petition?
b. Whether the writ petition would be barred by the
principle of res judicata / constructive res judicata ?
c. Whether taking possession of the lands by the BDA, by
drawing mahazar would be lawful?
d. Whether the writ petition suffers from delay and laches?
8. The learned Single Judge held that the claim of the
petitioners was based on the fact that the notified khatedar of
Survey No.35/1 was Sri.G.B.Harsha and Sri.M.Jayarama in
respect to Survey No.35/2A. The original khatedar, never
challenged the land acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey
Nos.35/1 and 35/2A and therefore, the petitioners would not
have locus standi to challenge the inclusion of lands in Survey
Nos.35/1 and 35/2A while filing the writ petition. Insofar as lands
bearing Survey No.36/1, the learned Single Judge has held that
Sri.G.Krishnappa, the owner of the land had executed gift deeds
- 13 -
on 21.10.2002 gifting three guntas to each of his five daughters
and leaving two guntas for the purpose of the road prior to the
Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002. Therefore,
Sri.G.Krishnappa or his wife would not have any subsisting
interest in the lands acquired. However, with the death of
Smt.Ammayamma during the pendency of the writ petition, her
legal heirs have come on record and therefore, insofar as the
lands in Survey No.36/1 is concerned, the legal heirs of
Ammayamma would have locus to challenge the land acquisition
proceedings.
9. In respect of the writ petition being barred by the principle
of res judicata / constructive res judicata, learned Single Judge
has held that the earlier writ petitions were filed by the petitioners
challenging the preliminary and final notifications for acquiring
the lands. 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 Act,
- 14 -
would not be hit by the principle of res judicata / constructive res
judicata.
10. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that
government has granted approval for issuing final notification in
respect of 750 acres of lands only and that the original scheme
stood modified. Out of the 750 acres notified, the BDA had
taken possession of 580 acres 18 guntas of lands, which were
handed over for formation of layouts and carving 5,991 sites, out
of which 4983 sites had been allotted, to indicate that there has
been substantial implementation of the scheme. Therefore, the
submission of the petitioners that lapsing of the scheme in the
context of Section 27 of the BDA Act has not been found favour.
Insofar as drawing nebulous mahazar is concerned, the learned
Single Judge has held that the same has to be tested on the
basis of totality of circumstances.
11. In the present case, the award was passed on 12.12.2003 in
respect of the lands of the petitioners. Thereafter, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Section 12(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act on 30.12.2003 and on 08.12.2003 calling
upon the owners of the lands to hand over possession on
- 15 -
14.01.2004 and 16.12.2004 respectively. The possession of
petitioners' lands was taken by drawing mahazars and
publishing notification under Section 16(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act on 29.05.2007. The award amount was
deposited before the Civil Court on 04.02.2005. The mutation
was made in favour of the BDA in the record of rights on
02.01.2013, which would indicate virtually seamless flow of
events of acquisition and that would also substantiate the stand
of the BDA. The learned Single Judge has held that the mode
and method of BDA taking possession of the petitioners' lands
do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Further, the
petitioners would be barred from raising the said issue while
seeking declaration about lapsing of the scheme under Section
27 of the BDA Act. The learned Single Judge further held that
the final notification was issued in the official gazette on
10.09.2003 and five years would expire in 2008, but the petition
was filed on 25.02.2013 and no explanation was coming forth.
Petitioners' claim that the cause of action for filing the writ
petition would be entry of Engineers or Officials of BDA into the
petitioners' land on 23.01.2013 was negatived inasmuch as the
relief sought was declaration regarding lapsing of the land
- 16 -
acquisition proceedings under Section 27 of BDA Act, for which
the cause of action had arisen on 10.09.2008 itself. However,
the writ petition was filed in the year 2013 without any
explanation regarding delay and latches, the learned Single
Judge was of the view that the writ petition would be liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had
submitted that the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order
dated 11.04.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos.57348-57350/2014
(LA-BDA) in respect of the same land acquisition proceedings.
had quashed the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the
petitioners in those writ petitions on the ground of a nebulous
mahazar and the fact that the notification issued under Section
16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was not produced. The Writ
Appeal No.1759/2019 against the said judgment came to be
dismissed vide judgment dated 24.02.2020 primarily on the
ground of enormous delay and latches of 1104 days. The
Supreme Court had dismissed the Civil Appeal No.5455/2024
and 5456/2024, which was filed against the judgment passed by
the Division Bench. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
- 17 -
that case the Supreme Court held that the BDA had reluctantly
filed an intra Court appeal with delay of 1104 days and the
Division Bench had primarily dismissed the appeal on the ground
of inordinate and unexplained delay with some observations
regarding failure of the BDA in taking possession of the lands or
non-implementing of the scheme was also made. It was also
observed that after the decision of the learned Single Judge until
the intra Court Appeal was filed, some of the original owners had
altered their position and third party rights were created and
therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts the Civil Appeals were
dismissed.
13. In another batch of Writ Appeals the Division Bench of this
Court vide detailed Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2025
passed in Writ Appeal No.1026/2006 (LA-BDA) and connected
writ appeals has upheld that land acquisition proceedings in
respect of the same layout. The contention regarding the lapse
of the scheme was specifically negatived in paragraph Nos.31
and 32. It was held that the acquisition process was lawful, fair
and necessary for urban planning. Paragraph Nos.31, 32 and 36
of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:-
- 18 -
"31. The betterment tax levied under Section
20 of the BDA Act on 657 acres 15 guntas of deleted
land was a justified measure to ensure that those
who benefited from the proximity of the developed
layout contributed towards urban infrastructure
improvements. The BDA had already incurred
significant expenses on land leveling, drainage
formation, and other development works, spending
crores of rupees to implement the scheme.
Furthermore, possession of 580 acres 18 guntas
was lawfully handed over to BDA's Engineering
section for layout formation, while the remaining
land was delayed due to court-imposed stay orders.
The appellants' claim that the acquisition lapsed
under Section 27 of the BDA Act and Section 24(2)
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement
Act, 2013, is untenable, as possession has already
been lawfully taken and utilized for public
development. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v.
Bangalore Development Authority [(2011) 3
SCC 139], has upheld that once substantial
development has commenced, acquisition does not
lapse, making the appellants' arguments legally
unsustainable.
32. The procedural fairness of the acquisition
process is further reinforced by the compliance with
Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act. The development
- 19 -
scheme was prepared in strict accordance with
Sections 15 and 16, and the Final Notification was
issued after obtaining Government sanction under
Section 18(3) of the BDA Act. Though the
appellants have argued that they were denied a fair
opportunity to present their objections, but this
argument is factually incorrect, as public hearings
were conducted, their objections were considered,
and necessary modifications were made. The BDA
Act does not mandate personal or oral hearings
beyond the consideration of written objections, and
this view is reaffirmed by a judgment of this Court
in the case of D. Hemachandra Sagar v. State of
Karnataka, (1998 SCC OnLine Kar 549) holding
that, as long as a development scheme is prepared
with broad compliance to Section 16 of the BDA Act,
procedural sufficiency is maintained.
33. .............................xxxxxxx......................
34. ............................xxxxxxxx.....................
35. .............................xxxxxxxxx......................
36. Thus, the BDA's acquisition process was
lawful, fair, and necessary for urban planning. The
statutory process under the BDA Act, 1976, was
rigorously followed, and all procedural safeguards
were adhered to. The deletion of lands was based on
rational considerations, and the public interest in
urban expansion outweighs the individual interests
- 20 -
of the appellants. Given that the acquisition has
already resulted in significant urban development,
any interference at this stage would cause
irreparable harm to public planning and
infrastructure development. Accordingly, we are of
the view that the BDA's acquisition is legally sound,
and the appellants' claims requires to be dismissed
in the interest of justice, equity, and public welfare.
In that view of the matter, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) All these writ appeals namely, i) W.A.No.1026/2006, ii)
W.A.No.1093/2006, iii) W.A.No.1116/2006,
iv) W.A.No.1164/2006, v) W.A.No.1167/2006,
vi) W.A.No.1312/2006, vii) W.A.No.1430/2006,
viii) W.A.No.1844/2006 and ix) W.A.No.960/2007 filed by
the appellants are dismissed.
b) Consequently, i) the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2066/2004, ii) the order
dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.2057 to 2065/2004, iii) the order dated 06.06.2006
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.43126-
43137/2003, iv) the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.54766/2003, 49850/2003,
48158/2003 & 51132/2003, v) the order dated 06.06.2006
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4147/2004,
vi) the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.2057/2004, vii) the order dated
06.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in
- 21 -
W.P.No.2240/2004 viii) the order dated 29.08.2006 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.50611/2003 and ix)
the order dated 14.03.2007 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.17452/2005, are hereby upheld. As a
result, the acquisition proceedings are also upheld.
iii) All pending applications stand disposed of as a
consequence."
14. Considering the aforesaid facts and the judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench, we are of the view, that no interference is
called for in the impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge and thus, we dismiss the
writ appeals.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
NG
