Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed before the Karnataka High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by land owners whose property was acquired for the Byrasandra, Tavarekere and Madivala Layout (BTM Layout), 6th Stage, in Hulimavu and Arekere villages, Bangalore. The petitioners claimed that the acquisition proceedings under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act) had lapsed due to failure to substantially implement the scheme, as required by Section 27 of the Act. The preliminary notification dated 08.09.1987 covered 805 acres 21 guntas, but the final notification issued on 28.07.1990 was for a reduced extent. According to the petitioners, only about 31 acres 2 guntas in Hulimavu Village and 7 acres 20 guntas in Arekere Village had been utilized for layout formation, which constituted a tiny fraction of the notified land. They relied on earlier decisions of the High Court which had held that the BTM Layout (6th Stage) scheme had failed under Section 27. The petitioners also challenged the allotment of a portion of the acquired land (Sy. No. 80/1) to the police department for establishing a police station, arguing that the land was originally earmarked for housing and could not be redesignated as a civic amenity site. Earlier, the petitioners had filed W.P. No. 19277/1990, which was disposed of on 19.09.1996 with a direction to the BDA to consider their representation for allotment of alternative sites. In 2007, the BDA initiated demolition proceedings under Section 33(2) of the BDA Act, leading to W.P. No. 19877/2007, which was dismissed on 16.08.2010 for lack of material to show substantial lapse of the scheme. During arguments, the petitioners contended that the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, did not conclusively prove possession and was rebuttable; that without an award, possession could not have been taken in 1990; that once the scheme lapsed under Section 27, Section 36 of the BDA Act became inoperative, rendering all actions under the acquisition void; and that the acquisition had consequently lapsed. They also initially raised the ground of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, but did not press it in light of a Division Bench ruling that Section 24(2) is inapplicable to BDA acquisitions. The court reserved judgment after hearing arguments, and the final decision was not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapsing of Scheme - Substantial Implementation of Scheme - Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Section 27 - Where only 31 acres 2 guntas out of 805 acres 21 guntas notified were utilized for layout formation, petitioners contended the scheme lapsed due to failure to substantially implement; prior decisions of this Court in similar matters held the scheme failed (Paras 3-5, 9.3-9.5). B) Land Acquisition - Effect of Lapsed Scheme - Applicability of Section 36 - Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Sections 27, 36 - Once scheme lapses under Section 27, Section 36 becomes inoperative and any actions including possession or vesting are null and void; petitioners contended that the acquisition is non-est (Paras 9.5, 9.11). C) Land Acquisition - Presumption of Possession - Rebuttable Nature of Section 16(2) Notification - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 16(2) - Issuance of notification under Section 16(2) does not establish conclusive proof of possession but raises a rebuttable presumption; petitioners contended that possession was not taken in 1990 as no award was passed by then (Paras 9.1, 9.2). D) Land Acquisition - Transfer of Acquired Land to Police Department - Change of Purpose - Civic Amenity Site - Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Allotment of land earmarked for housing in layout to police department as civic amenity site challenged as illegal and contrary to approved layout plan; petitioners argued that the land could not be used for police station (Paras 9.6-9.8). E) Land Acquisition - Applicability of LARR Act - Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Petitioners initially invoked deemed lapse under Section 24(2) but conceded that Division Bench held it inapplicable to BDA acquisitions; argument not pressed (Para 9.14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether acquisition of petitioners' land for BTM Layout lapsed under Section 27 of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 due to failure to substantially implement the scheme, and whether Section 36 of the Act is inapplicable, and whether acquisition is deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Law Points
- Lapsing of scheme under Section 27 of BDA Act
- applicability of Section 36
- presumption under Section 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- non-applicability of Section 24 of LARR Act to BDA acquisitions
