KARNATAKA v. (BY SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADV. FOR R1 & R2)

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONS HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 9TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU-560 080 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MR. PRATAPCHAND RATHOD. PRESENTLY AT NO.84, 1ST FLOOR, ” SUN SMILE”, KUMARA PARK WEST, SERPENTINE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 020. (BY SRI.D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADV. FOR SRI AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADV.) AND:

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU- 560 020 BY ITS COMMISSIONER. MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35091-DB RP No. 865 of 2022

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU -560 020.

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADV. FOR R1 & R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2021 IN W.A. NO.3324/2016 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS MAY BE JUST AND NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) The Learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the review petitioner, holding that the acquisition of the subject land had lapsed by operation of both Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “BDA Act”) and - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35091-DB RP No. 865 of 2022 Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “2013 Act”). This compelled the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to file W.A. No.3487/2016.

2. This Court, by an order dated 21.06.2021, allowed the writ appeal by referring to the judgment delivered in W.A. No.1274/2018.

3. In W.A. No.1274/2018, this Court addressed the issue of whether the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed by the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as well as Section 27 of the BDA Act, specifically concerning the approval of the scheme related to HRBR Layout. In the present case, however, the scheme in question pertains to RMV II Stage. Therefore, the question of whether the scheme related to RMV II Stage has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act requires reconsideration. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35091-DB RP No. 865 of 2022

The order under review did not take into consideration whether the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act with respect to the RMV II Stage scheme. Hence, the order dated

21.06.2021 requires to be set aside.

All contentions of the parties are kept open for reconsideration. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE MPK