Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sri M Nagesh Reddy, Smt M Sathya Reddy, and Sri M Devendra, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. They sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents (State of Karnataka, Bangalore Development Authority, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer) in respect of their property had lapsed and were abandoned. The acquisition was initiated by a preliminary notification dated 29.12.1988 under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act), published in the official gazette on 30.3.1989, followed by a final notification dated 9.5.1994 under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, published on 18.5.1994. The petitioners contended that despite the passage of over 25 years, the respondents had neither taken possession of the property nor paid compensation. They argued that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, which provides that if possession is not taken within five years from the date of the final notification, the acquisition lapses. Additionally, they invoked Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act), which deems acquisitions to have lapsed if an award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and compensation has not been paid or possession not taken. The respondents opposed the petition, but the court found that the respondents failed to demonstrate that possession was taken or compensation paid. The court noted that the award was made on 9.5.1994, and no evidence of payment or possession was produced. The court held that the acquisition had lapsed under both Section 27 of the BDA Act and Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the preliminary and final notifications, and directed the respondents to return the property to the petitioners if possession had not been taken. The court also ordered that if possession had been taken, the respondents must initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 27 of BDA Act, 1976 and Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their property under the BDA Act, 1976, contending that the acquisition had lapsed as neither possession was taken nor compensation paid within five years from the final notification. The court held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act and also under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and compensation was not paid. The court quashed the notifications and directed the respondents to return the property to the petitioners if possession had not been taken. (Paras 1-10) B) Land Acquisition - Applicability of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - The court considered whether the acquisition initiated under the BDA Act, 1976 would be governed by the 2013 Act. It held that Section 24(2) applies to all acquisitions where an award has been made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and since the BDA Act adopts the 1894 Act for compensation, the 2013 Act's provisions regarding lapse are applicable. The court found that the award was made on 9.5.1994, more than five years before the 2013 Act came into force, and compensation was not paid, hence the acquisition lapsed. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 have lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act and Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 29.12.1988 and final notification dated 9.5.1994 are declared to have lapsed and are quashed. The respondents are directed to return the property to the petitioners if possession has not been taken. If possession has been taken, the respondents may initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
Law Points
- Land acquisition lapses if possession not taken and compensation not paid within five years under Section 27 of BDA Act
- 1976
- Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act
- 2013 applies to acquisitions initiated before 2013 if award was made five years or more prior and compensation not paid or possession not taken
