BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU Vs. C.KRISHNAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28-1-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 10347 of 2015, by which the petition was allowed declaring insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned the scheme of acquisition is said to have lapsed, the respondents 2 and 3 therein are in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner filed writ petition to declare the acquisition proceedings in respect of the schedule property initiated under preliminary notification dated 8-9-1987 and final notification dated 28-7-1990, has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to declare the scheme under the notifications have lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'the BDA Act'). The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner in possession of land in Sy. No. 77/1, measuring 32 guntas situated at Arakere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is also stated that there are certain structures over the lands in question. The 2nd respondent issued preliminary notification dated 8-9-1987 proposing to acquire total extent of 805 acres 21 guntas of land for formation of "Byrasandra Tavarekere Madivala, 6th Stage Layout". The petitioner's land was also notified in the above stated preliminary notification for acquisition to an extent of 32 guntas. Thereafter, final notification dated 28-7-1990 was issued. The 3rd respondent passed award on 3-3-1993, which is passed belatedly contrary to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is stated that even though award is passed no physical possession of the lands have been taken. It is stated that the Central Government repealed the Land Acquisition Act and has brought into effect Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the 2013 Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that as the award is passed on 26-7-1993 and even after five years from the date of passing the award, physical possession is not taken. Section 24(2) of 2013 Act would come into play and acquisition proceedings is deemed to have lapsed. The respondent-BDA in its objection denying the claim that the acquisition has lapsed contends that land has vested with the State. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition and held that the scheme has lapsed insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned, since the petitioner continued in possession and the scheme has not been substantially implemented within five years from the date of final notification. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 2 and 3 are in appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the appeal papers.