Judgment:
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India To Declare That The Acquisition Notification Issued Under Section 17 Of The Bda Act Dated 17.11.1988 Published In The Karnataka Gazette Vide Ann-A And Final Notification Dated 17.9.1997 Published In The Karnataka Gazette Vide Ann-B In Respect Of The Petitioners' Land Bearing Sy.No.6/3 Measuring An Extent Of 1 Acre 19 Guntas Situated At Raghuvanahalli Vilalge, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore Has Lapsed In So Far As The Petitioners Land Is Concerned.)
1. Heard Shri. Madhusudhaii. R. Naik, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority.
2. The petitions coming on for preliminary hearing ("B" Group) are considered for final disposal.
3. The brief facts are as follows:-
The petitioners claim that late Puttaswamachar was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Survey No.6/3 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas of Raghuvanahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. After his demise, the revenue entries were effected in the name of Basavachar who was the eldest son of Puttaswamachar. After the death of Basavachar, the entries were effected in the name of the petitioners. As on the date of the petition it is their names which were reflected in the revenue records. The second respondent is said to have issued a notification under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as, "BDA Act" for brevity) proposing to acquire the land in question for the formation of "Jayaprakashnarayana Nagar 9th Stage" layout. It transpires that apart from the petitioner's land, other lands totaling 1333 acres 34 guntas, including the petitioners' land of 1 acre 19 guntas, was sought to be acquired. Thereafter, a final notification was issued under Section 19 of the BDA Act for the formation of aforesaid layout where the total extent was restricted to 1111 acres 36 3A guntas, including the petitioners land. Aggrieved by this, Basavachar, predecessor-in-title, of the petitioners along wiili other land owners had filed writ petitions in W.P.No.4046/93 and connected cases, this Court had quashed the final notification in those proceedings with liberty to the respondent to proceed with the preliminary notification. Thereafter, a second final notification was issued re- notifying the petitioners land for the purpose as aforesaid, which is dated 17 .9.1997. However, no further steps having been taken including the passing of an award or possession of the land in question being taken and the respondent not having carried out any developmental work over the land in question, it is contended that the scheme pursuant to which the acquisition has taken place, has lapsed, insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned.
4. The learned Senior Advocate would submit that this position cannot be denied, as there are a series of orders passed in various petitions, pertaining to the; very layout, and this Court has repeatedly held that the scheme has lapsed insofar as the respondents had not proceeded to implement the scheme within a period of five years from the date of final notification and even as on date, there has been no further progress and hence, the petition would have to be allowed, summarily.
5. However, from a perusal of the Statement of objections, it is evident that possession of the land has not been taken by the BDA. If that circumstance is accepted, it would follow that there has been no development over the lands in implementing the scheme, more than five years after the final notification. Consequently, the rigour of Section 27 of the BDA Act would apply and hence, the scheme insofar as the petitioners land are concerned, has lapsed and it would also follow that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the petitioners lands ought to be quashed.
6. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The scheme is declared as having lapsed, insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned, and the acquisition proceedings stand quashed insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned.