2015 Buyer’s Bid To Undo 1984 BDA Acquisition Fails: Karnataka HC Says Section 24(2) Does Not Apply to BDA Acquisitions

The petitioner purchased the property at Site No. 14 in Sy. No. 36/1, Benniganahalli, under a sale deed dated 27 January 2015.

The land had been notified for acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) through a preliminary notification dated 28 May 1984 and a final notification dated 23 October 1986.

The petitioner claimed possession, and argued that the acquisition had lapsed because possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid; she also claimed that the scheme had lapsed and sought the benefit of Section 38-D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act).

She filed the writ petition in 2017, challenging the acquisition more than three decades after the preliminary notification.

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act concerns lapse of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the Court held that it did not apply to this acquisition, which was initiated under the BDA Act.

Under Section 27 of the BDA Act, a scheme may lapse if it is not implemented within the prescribed period, but the petitioner had to establish the relevant non-implementation; the Court found no material on record to do so.

Section 38-D of the BDA Act, inserted on 10 July 2020, required the claimant to establish physical possession for at least 12 years before its commencement and that the property was incapable of being used for the layout.

The respondents also relied on V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, (2012) 12 SCC 133, and Delhi Development Authority v. Dayanand, (2022) 18 SCC 83, in support of their objection to a subsequent purchaser challenging the acquisition.

The Court noted that the petitioner acquired the property in 2015 and challenged the acquisition in 2017, long after the 1984 preliminary notification. It held that, as a subsequent purchaser, she could not establish a basis to challenge the acquisition as lapsed; in any event, the acquisition was under the BDA Act, so Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act did not apply. Nor had she produced evidence that the scheme was not implemented within the period contemplated by Section 27.

As to Section 38-D, the sale deed did not record an earlier structure, and the petitioner could not produce documents establishing the requisite earlier construction or possession. She therefore failed to establish the conditions for relief under that provision.

It dismissed the writ petition and left the BDA and its officers at liberty to take lawful steps to recover possession of the property.