- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44195 WP No. 35183 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.35183 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N. PRABHU S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SRI C.P. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O N. PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 3. SRI N. DAYANAND S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, PETITIONERS NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.16, II MAIN, II CROSS, ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT, KONANNAKUNTE POST, BANGALORE-560 062. 4. SRI N. RAJESH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.51, ‘SUMUKHA NILAYA’, NEAR YELLAMA TEMPLE, CHUNCHIGHATTA, BANGALORE-560 062. 5. SMT. PUSHPA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, W/O RAJANNA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR. 5(a) SMT. R. NANDINI W/O MUNIRAJU, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44195 WP No. 35183 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.26 SARVER STREET, WARD NO.2, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAND ACQUISITION) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. 4. THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMAR PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 23.03.1988, AT ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 19.10.1994, AT ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44195 WP No. 35183 of 2016 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Though W.P.Nos.35183/2016 and 9289/2025 have been heard together, however disposed of through separate orders. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the preliminary notification dated 23.03.1988 (Annexure-E) and final notification dated 19.10.1994 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondents under the Provisions of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘Act’ for short) in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.123/1, Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, to the extent of 1 acre, contending that the scheme for the formation of JP Nagar, 8th stage layout has lapsed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the BDA. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44195 WP No. 35183 of 2016 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of this Court in R. Adikesavulu Naidu and Others Vs.The State of Karnataka by its Secretary U.D.D and Others1 (Adikesavulu), wherein it was categorically held that the scheme proposed by the BDA was not substantially implemented within a period of 5 years as mandated under Section 27 of the Act, and consequently, the scheme stood lapsed. He further submits that the said view was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.15015/2011 and connected matters, and the SLP filed by the BDA before the Apex Court came to be dismissed, thus attained finality. 5. It is contended that the petitioners’ land formed part of the same preliminary and final notification considered in Adikesavulu’s case, the possession of the land was never taken by the authorities. The records including the objections filed by respondents Nos.2 to 4, 1 ILR 2011 KAR 3657 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44195 WP No. 35183 of 2016 clearly indicate that the possession could not been taken due to unauthorised constructions that came up later. Therefore, it is urged that applying the ratio of Adikesavulu’s case, the acquisition in respect of the petitioners’ land also stands lapsed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4-BDA has filed objections denying the petitioners’ averments and contending that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches, having been filed after two decades from the final notification. Notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short) were issued to the Khathedars, whose name appeared in the revenue records, namely Thippanna and son of Muniswamappa and Krishnappa, the petitioners’ father Narayanappa never approached the authority. It is further stated that an award was approved on 16.01.1997, and notices were issued to the Khathedars. However, the award notice to Narayanappa was returned unserved. The mahazar dated 16.03.1995 reveals that the land was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44195 WP No. 35183 of 2016 vacant except for small unauthorised shed, but later several illegal constructions came up, preventing the BDA from taking possession. Hence according to the respondents, the acquisition remains valid and the petition should be dismissed. 7. On examining the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that land of the present petitioners bearing Sy.No.123/1 of Kothanur Village, measuring 1 acre forms an integral part of the acquisition proceedings initiated under preliminary notification dated 23.03.1988 and final notification dated 19.10.1994 issued for formation of JP Nagar, 8th stage layout by the BDA. The said very scheme and notification were subject matter of adjudication before the Court in Adikesavulu’s case stated supra. 8. In Adikesavulu’s case this Court after an exhaustive consideration of the records of the JP Nagar, 8th stage scheme held that, BDA had not substantially - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44195 WP No. 35183 of 2016 implemented the scheme within 5 years from the date of its final notification as required under Section 27 of the Act. The Court observed that mere issuance of notification or passing of awards without actual formation of the layout or taking of possession would not amount to substantial implementation. Consequently, it was declared that the entire scheme had lapsed and the BDA was restrained from proceeding further with its implementation. 9. The judgment in Adikesavulu’s case was carried in W.A.No.15015/2011 and connected matters, wherein the Division Bench confirmed the view of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeals filed by the BDA. The Apex Court in Special Leave petition preferred by the BDA, also dismissed the same, thereby giving finality to the declaration of the lapse of J.P. Nagar, 8th stage scheme. The acquisition impugned in the present petition arises from the very same notifications that were considered in Adikesavulu’s case. Therefore, the ratio laid down therein squarely governs the case on hand. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44195 WP No. 35183 of 2016 Once the scheme itself stands declared as lapsed for non- implementation within the statutory period, any acquisition proceeding traceable to that scheme automatically lose legal efficacy. The respondent cannot seek to revive a dead scheme by merely relying upon an award passed years later or by asserting that the possession could not have been taken owing to unauthorised construction. 10. The statement of objections filed by BDA in this case reinforces the factual matrix found in Adikesavulu’s case, that possession of the land was never taken, and that even by 1997 nearly 9 years after the preliminary notification, the land continued to remain in the private occupation. Such admission conclusively demonstrate that no substantial implementation of the scheme within the time stipulated under Section 27 of Act. Once the lapse is statutory and judicially recognized, the notifications, award and all consequential proceedings become non est. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44195 WP No. 35183 of 2016 11. The plea of delay and laches raised by the respondents cannot breathe life into an acquisition which the law itself has rendered void. The legislative intent underlining Section 27 of the Act is to prevent perpetual uncertainties to landowners and to compel the Planning Authority to act within a fixed time frame. The BDA prolonged inaction and its failure to take possession or form the layout cannot override that statutory mandate. Accordingly, applying the binding precedent of Adikesavulu’s case stated supra, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and the Apex Court, this Court holds that the scheme for formation of J.P. Nagar, 8th stage scheme has lapsed, and the acquisition in respect of the petitioners’ land in Sy.No.123/1 stands automatically annulled. Any award or possession mahazar drawn thereafter is rendered legally inconsequential. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44195 WP No. 35183 of 2016 ii. The impugned preliminary notification dated 23.03.1988 (Annexure-E) and the final notification dated 19.10.1994 (Annexure-F) insofar as it relates to the petitioners’ land are hereby quashed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43