BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. E. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed against the order dtd. 4/11/2020 passed in W.P.No.51853/2013 by which learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition declared the Preliminary Notification at Annexure-C dtd. 29/12/1988 and Final Notification at Annexure-C-1 dtd. 9/5/1994 as having stood lapsed and abandoned to the extent pertaining to the property bearing Sy.No.33/2A measuring 28.5 guntas belonging to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

(2.) The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge has been passed allowing the writ petition as sought for in view of the order dtd.:26/7/2017 of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rashme Hegde Gopi and anr Vs BDA and others in W.P.Nos.16220-221/2016 wherein under identical facts and circumstances of the matter it was held that BDA had not effectively and substantially implemented the scheme and consequently the scheme as well as acquisition proceedings had lapsed in terms of Sec. 27 of the BDA Act.

(3.) It is not in dispute that appellant-BDA had issued a Preliminary Notification dtd. 29/12/1998 proposing to acquire an extent of 1851.39 acres of land for the purpose of forming a residential layout known as Banashankari V Stage. That the Final Notification was issued on 9/5/1994 which included land in Sy.No.33 belonging to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. The said Notification was challenged by respondent No.1 in the above writ petition claiming to be owner of land in Sy.No.33/2A and also contending that though appellant-BDA had issued Preliminary and Final Notification neither the award was passed nor possession was taken. As such entire scheme and acquisition had lapsed as per Sec. 27 of BDA Act. On a query by this Court regarding implementation of the scheme, learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the scheme had not been implemented as yet.