BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VANAJA MUNIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the respondents, in which a declaration was sought that acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellants herein under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has lapsed, has been allowed. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated hereinafter:

(2.) The respondents are owners of several lands. The aforesaid land was required by the appellants for formation of residential layout viz., Banaswadi Road and Hennur Road Layout. Accordingly, a preliminary Notification dated 21.03.1977 was issued under Section 17(1) of the Act by which it was proposed to acquire 1293 acres and 14 guntas of land comprised in several villages. Thereafter, a final Notification under Section 19(1) of the Act was issued on 14.05.1980 and an award was passed and approved on 05.02.1983. It is the case of the appellants that possession of the aforesaid land was taken and handed over to the engineering section of the appellant for implementation of the scheme. It is also the stand of the appellants that the amount of compensation was paid. The respondents however, filed a writ petition in which inter alia a relief of declaration was sought that acquisition of schedule property in terms of acquisition proceedings has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as neither the possession of land in question was taken nor compensation was paid to the respondents.

(3.) The learned Single Judge by an order dated 17.03.2016 allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondents and held that neither the possession was taken nor compensation was paid therefore, the proceeding under Section 24(2) of the Act have lapsed.