- 1 - . NC: 2025:KHC:3374 WP No. 17302 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 17302 OF 2021 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. MUNIYALLAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.161, INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI COLONY, DOCTORS LAYOUT, BEHIND MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, AREKERE, B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY A.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK (WEST), BENGALURU-560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - . NC: 2025:KHC:3374 WP No. 17302 of 2021 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK (WEST), BENGALURU-560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHA RAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SURAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 08.09.1987 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 28.07.1990 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner claiming to be the erstwhile owner of land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.5/1 of Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south taluk, which was subject matter of preliminary notification dated 08.09.1987 and the final - 3 - . NC: 2025:KHC:3374 WP No. 17302 of 2021 notification dated 28.07.1990 issued by the respondent No.2 - Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA'), for the purpose of formation of BTM layout, is before this Court seeking following reliefs: Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/ALAO/A5/28/87-88 dated 08.09.1987 and final Notification bearing No.HUD/231/MNX/90 dated 28.07.1990 issued by the 3rd respondent, produced as Annexures A and B to the writ petition; Vide Order dated 22.08.2022 prayer (a-i) as amended: i. Declare that the preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/ALAO/A5/28/87-88 dated 08.09.1987 and final notification bearing No.HUD/231/MNX/90 dated 28.07.1990 issued by the 3rd respondent are lapsed by virtue of non-implementation of the Scheme substantially as comtemplated under Section 27 of the BDA Act, 1976, produced at Annexure A and B to the writ petition; and ii. pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the facts and - 4 - . NC: 2025:KHC:3374 WP No. 17302 of 2021 circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Before adverting to the merits of the case and contentions of the parties, it is necessary to note that the petitioner on 03.03.2023 on instruction had submitted that though he was the owner of 2 acres of land, in view of the sale made by him subsequent to the notification, he was restricting his claim in the petition only to an extent of 18 guntas (incorrectly noted as 20 guntas), which is described at Schedule-B to the writ petition. 3. Sri.Vijay A.M, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court through the records and reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits, that though preliminary notification was issued on 08.09.1987 by the respondent - BDA proposing to acquire an extent of 805 acres, 21 guntas of land, in the final notification that was issued on 28.07.1990, only 562 acres, 34 guntas of land were notified. He further submits that even as against the said extent of land, only an extent of 359 acres and 39 guntas of land was - 5 - . NC: 2025:KHC:3374 WP No. 17302 of 2021 admittedly taken possession of. In that, the possession in respect land belonging to the petitioner has not been taken. He further submits no notification as required under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued. He also submits, even till date, i.e., after lapse of 35 years of the final notification, award has not been passed. Referring to Section 27 of the BDA Act, learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter and non-compliance of the statutory requirements, within the time-line prescribed under the Statute by the respondent - BDA the acquisition in question to the extent of the land described in Schedule-B to the petition, belonging to the petitioner is required to be declared to have lapsed/abandoned. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his submissions relies upon the following orders, passed by the Co- ordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.33142/2017, WP.Nos.1345-1346/2016 c/w WP.Nos.4470-4471/2016, WP.No.55991/2015 and WA.No.6936/2017 wherein the lands, subject matter of the - 6 - . NC: 2025:KHC:3374 WP No. 17302 of 2021 very same acquisition in respect of the lands, subject matter of the very same scheme, has been held to have lapsed, under the provisions of the Section 27 of the BDA Act, 1976. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 5. In response Sri.Suraj Patil, learned counsel for the respondent taking this Court through the contents of the statement of objection submits that at the outset petitioner is not entitled to maintain the petition in-as-much as he has sold more than 1 acre, 20 guntas of land, to various persons subsequent to issuance of the final notification. As such he has lost substratum of the petition. He further submits that the scheme has been substantially implemented. In that, out of 359 acres, 39 guntas, 214 acres, 33 guntas has been developed, sites have been formed, same have been allotted to various persons, houses and buildings have come up. As such, he submits the contention of the petitioner that the scheme having lapsed for want of implementation cannot be countenanced. - 7 - . NC: 2025:KHC:3374 WP No. 17302 of 2021 6. However, on a query by this Court he fairly submits, award in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner has not been passed till date and the possession of the property of the petitioner has not been taken. He hasten to add non-passing of the award is for the reason that there were certain disputes and illegal encroachment, due to which the respondent - BDA could not proceed to pass award. As it was not in a position to ascertain the actual persons who are entitled for the award. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. Property belonging to the petitioner having been notified for acquisitions under the preliminary notification dated 08.09.1997 and final notification dated 28.07.1990 as noted above is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that even after lapse of almost 35 years, neither the award is passed, nor the compensation is paid and nor even the possession taken till date. Section 27 of the BDA Act, reads as under: - 8 - . NC: 2025:KHC:3374 WP No. 17302 of 2021 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. 9. Co-ordinate Bench and the Division Bench of this Court in the orders passed in the writ petitions and writ appeals referred to above, taking note of the similar facts and circumstances of the matter in respect of the very same notification, pertaining to very same project scheme, have declared the acquisition of the properties of the petitioners in the said writ petitions to have lapsed, in view of operation of Section 27 of the Act. 10. Respondent - BDA a Statutory Authority cannot be expected to sit on the private property belonging to a citizen, without complying with the statutory requirement, within the time-line prescribed there under. Though Section 27 of the Act refers to lapsing of the acquisition on account of non- - 9 - . NC: 2025:KHC:3374 WP No. 17302 of 2021 implementation of the scheme, the case at hand is a step ahead in non-compliance with the applicable provisions of law governing acquisition. In that as already noted, neither the award is passed nor the possession is taken till date. Respondent-Authorities have no justification to offer. It may be that the petitioner has admittedly sold certain portions of his land, as such, he may not be entitled for any statutory benefits. However, to the extent land retained by him (admittedly 18 guntas, as noted in the order dated 03.03.2023) he cannot be denied of the relief. In view of the undisputed fact of the matter being that no award is passed, possession is not taken, even after the lapse of 35 years, this Court do not see any reason not to grant the relief as sought for. 11. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition stands disposed of. ii. Preliminary notification dated 08.09.1987, and the final notification dated 28.07.1990, to extent of land measuring 18 guntas, (21590 - 10 - . NC: 2025:KHC:3374 WP No. 17302 of 2021 Sq.Ft.) forming part of Sy.No.5/1 of Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south taluk, as described at schedule-B to the writ petition are hereby quashed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT:SNN