- 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 8th 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. 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 No 1: A scheme proposed by BDA if is not 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 No 2: When once the scheme lapsed as 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