BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SRINIVASA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two Writ Appeals, the common question that arise for consideration is whether the Scheme framed by the Appellants for formation of Banashankari V Stage layout has lapsed in view of its non-implementation within five years as mandated under section 27 of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Since common question of law is involved, these two appeals are taken up for disposal together.

(2.) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Writ Petition Nos.13374 to 13375 of 2013 have filed this Writ Appeal assailing the Order dated 02.02.2016, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court had declared that the Banashankari V Stage Scheme formulated by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and approved by the respondent No.1 had lapsed in view of its nonimplementation within 5 years as mandated under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA Act') and also declared that the acquisition had lapsed in view of non taking over of possession of the land and excluding substantial portion of the land from acquisition.

(3.) The petitioner claimed that Survey Nos.83 and 84 of Uttarahalli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 01 Acre 04 guntas and 06 Acres 24 guntas respectively belong to his family. Pursuant to a deed of partition dated 24.03.2010 between the petitioner, his brother and mother, the aforesaid property fell to the share of the petitioner. It is stated that a Scheme was prepared by the respondent No.2 for the formation of Banashankari V Stage Layout, which was spread over 1351.39 Acres in various villages, namely, Uttarahalli, Marasandra, Vaddarapalya, Doddakallasandra, Yelachenahalli, Halagevaderahalli, Channasandra, Bikasipura, Vasanthapura and Konanakunte, following a preliminary notification dated 13.04.1981. It is stated that an extent of 500 Acres 06 guntas in Uttarahalli village including the land of the petitioner was the subject matter of the acquisition. It is stated that the petitioner's mother challenged the acquisition before this Court in Writ Petition No.993 of 2000, which was dismissed. Consequently, the final notification issued by the respondent No.1 remained undisturbed and the challenge to the acquisition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was also negatived.