SMT. S.V. JAYAMMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judgment

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT IN I.A.1/2023) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. A3 PR 511/SLAO/76-77 DATED 03.01.1977 ISSUED FOR FORMATION OF LAYOUT CALLED “RMV 2ND STAGE” ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17[1] OF THE BDA ACT (BDA ACT FOR SHORT) AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-C AND THE FINAL DECLARATION NO. HUD 39 MNJ 78 DATED 02.08.1978 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS LAPSED IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IS CONCERNED AS THE BDA HAS ABANDONED THE SCHEME IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS LAND IS CONCERNED AND ETC. - 3 - IN W.P. No.11782/2024 BETWEEN:

1. SRI HANUMANTHA GOWDA S/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

2. SRI ANAND .M S/O. NIRUPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.9, MARUTHI NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN, NEAR RAJMAHAL HIGH SCHOOL, AECS LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094. (BY SRI NAVEEN G.S., ADVOCATE) AND:

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020.

4. SMT. S.V. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE KARIYAPPA, ...PETITIONERS - 4 - AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO.170, NEAR NAGASHETTY BUS STOP, SANJAY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 094.

8. SRI. N. K. DEVARAJ GOWDA @ N. K. NARASIMHA RAJU S/O. LATE KARIAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, KUMARI SUSHMITA N.D. D/O. N.K. DEVARAJ GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.5 & 6 ARE R/AT GLOW APARTMENTS, GROUND FLOOR, MARUTHI EXTENSION, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE-560 094. SRI K. RAVI KUMAR S/O. LATE KARIAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SRI NISCHAL GOWDA N.R. S/O. N.K. RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.7 & 8 ARE R/AT NO.170, NEAR NAGASHETTY BUS STOP, SANJAY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 094.

9. SMT. N.K. SUGUNA W/O. SRI VENKATESH, D/O. LATE KARIAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

10. SRI DARSHAN KUMAR S/O. SRI VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, - 5 -

11. SRI MANJUNATH S/O. SRI. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 11 ARE R/AT NO.14/A, 3RD CROSS, GUNDAPPA MAIN ROAD, NAGASHETTIHALLI, RMV 2ND STAGE, SANJAY NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 094. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-11) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.A3 PR/511/SLAO/76-77 DATED 03/01/1977 ISSUED FOR FORMATION OF LAYOUT RMV 2ND STAGE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF BDA ACT PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B UNDER THE FINAL DECLARATION NO.HUD 39 MNJ 78 DATED 02/08/1978 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT AS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C HAS LAPSED IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED AS THE BDA AS ABANDONED THE SCHEME AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09/12/2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CAV O R D E R The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a declaration the preliminary notification dated

03.01.1977 and final declaration dated 02.08.1978 issued for the formation of RMV II stage layout under Sections 17 (1) and 19 (1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘BDA Act’ for short), have lapsed in so far as the petition schedule property is concerned, on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3-Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA’) have failed to execute the scheme within the statutory period as mandated under Section 27 of the BDA Act and that the petitioners continue to remain in actual physical and uninterrupted possession of the schedule property. The petitioners also seek a declaration that acquisition has further lapsed under Section 24 of Act 30/2013 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, - 7 - 2013 (‘Act, 2013’ for short) as neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation is paid. BRIEF FACTS

2. The land bearing Survey No. 24/3 of Nagashetty Halli Village measuring 20 guntas was notified for acquisition under the preliminary notification dated 03.01.1977 followed by the final notification dated 02.08.1978 for the formation of RMV II stage layout. Out of 20 guntas, 10 guntas are stated to have been utilized for formation of road, whereas the remaining 10 guntas, out of which petition schedule property measuring 10,070 square feet is carved out, remained untouched and undeveloped. The petitioners in W.P.11782/2024 purchased the said property under the registered sale deed dated 01.09.2017 from their vendors who have already challenged the very same notification in WP No. 58292 of 2014.

3. The petitioners assert continuous possession of schedule property and claim that no development - 8 - whatsoever has been undertaken by the BDA in respect of their land for nearly 45 years. Several coordinate Bench of this Court, in the cases of Sri Srinath Hegde and Others vs BDA and Another1 (Srinath Hegde), M.Venkatesh and Another vs BDA and Another2 (M Venkatesh) and Janardhan vs State of Karnataka and Others3 (Janardhan) have already held that RMV II stage scheme was not substantially implemented and had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act. Contentions of the petitioners

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar appearing for the petitioners in W.P. 58292/2014 and for respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in W.P. 11782/2024 submits that the BDA has failed to execute the scheme within 5 years from the date of final notification as required under Section 27 of the BDA Act. No development work has been carried out in respect of the petition schedule property which 1 WPs 16074-16110/2010 and connected matters, DD 2.9.2011 2 WPs 2206-08/2013 DD 23.01.2014 3 WP 24709 of 2017 DD 15.12.2023 - 9 - demonstrates complete non-implementation. It is further submitted that the mahazar relied upon by the BDA is defective, unsigned and not supported by evidence. Further it is submitted that no compensation has been paid, tendered or validly deposited in Court in favour of the petitioners or their vendors. It is further submitted that since neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid, the acquisition independently lapse under Section 24(2), that the co-ordinate benches have already declared the same scheme has lapsed and the petitioners land stands on the same footing. It is contended that the petitioners being bona fide purchasers in possession have locus to challenge the acquisition.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the writ petitions have to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as the present petitions are filed after decades and the petitioners have purchased land during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings and hence they cannot reopen concluded - 10 - acquisition. It is further argued that the award was passed on 14.12.1981, possession was taken by mahazar dated

21.03.1979 and 16 (2) notification was issued on 08.09.1983 and that the scheme has been implemented, RMV II stage layout has been formed, hence Section 27 does not apply. It is further contended that the compensation was deposited before the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act, 1894’ for short). Further that the BDA is a self contained Code and provisions of Act 30 of 2013 cannot invalidate an acquisition under the BDA Act.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is, Whether the preliminary notification dated

03.01.1977 declaration

02.08.1978 issued for formation of RMV II stage layout have lapsed in so far as the petitioners land is concerned either under Section 27 of the BDA Act for non-execution of the scheme or under - 11 - Section 24(2) of Act 30 of 2013 for want of possession and compensation?

7. Section 27 of the BDA Act mandates that once a declaration under Section 19 is issued, the authority shall execute the scheme within a period of 5 years from the date of publication of such declaration. The language of Section 27 is mandatory. Where the authority fails to substantially implement the scheme within the stipulated time, the scheme is automatic by operation of statute. The lapsing is not dependent on further notification or formal declaration by the State or BDA nor does the provision require issuance of any subsequent notification declaring the lapse. This Court in Srinath Hegde (supra) held that the partial or selective development does not amount to execution of the scheme and the non-implementation in respect of a part of the notified land results in lapse of the entire scheme insofar as such land is concerned. It is also well settled that a subsequent purchaser of a land cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings after the completion of the same. But - 12 - however he can maintain to challenge the acquisition proceedings if the acquisition has already lapsed in law either under Section 27 of the BDA Act or under Section 24(2) of Act, 30 of 2013. A purchaser obtains the vendor's right, title and interest as they existed on the date of purchase. If, on that date, the acquisition had in fact become operative for want of execution of the scheme or not taking of possession and non payment of compensation the purchaser is entitled to assert such lapse. When the statutory consequence of lapse has already occurred, the locus cannot be denied merely because the purchaser acquired title during the pendency of the proceedings.

8. The respondents have placed reliance on the series of decisions to contend that the challenge to the acquisition is belated, the scheme has been substantially implemented and that the land once vested cannot be divested. In Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal and Others4 (Indore Development Authority) the Apex Court has 4 (2020) 8 SCC 129 - 13 - reiterated that once possession is taken and vesting occurs under Section 16 of the Act, 1894, the land vests absolutely and free from encumbrances and cannot be reclaimed by the land owner. This principle is further supported by the decision in Northern Indian Glass Industries vs Jaswant Singh and Others5 (Northern Indian Glass Industries) and Offshore Holdings Private Limited vs BDA and Others6 (Offshore Holdings Private Limited) wherein the Apex Court held that the title, once vested is incapable of being altered and subsequent re-entry by the land owner is of no effect. On the issue of delay and latches, the respondents rely upon Sulochana Chandrakant Galande vs Pune Municipal Transport and Others7 (Sulochana Chandrakant) and Northern Indian Glass Industries (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that stale claims cannot be revived and writ petitions filed after inordinate delay must be ordinarily rejected. In addition, the judgments in BDA and Another vs The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, ORDER The Writ Petitions are allowed. The preliminary notification

03.01.1977 and final declaration dated

02.08.1978 are declared as lapsed in so far as the petition schedule property is concerned. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL