A subsequent purchaser cannot challenge a completed BDA acquisition or claim its lapse under Section 24(2).

The petitioner purchased the disputed property, a portion of Sy. No. 7, Nagawara Village, in 1991, after the BDA had issued a preliminary acquisition notification in 1978 and a final notification in 1985.

She claimed that she and her vendor remained in possession, that a building stood on the property, and that compensation had not been paid.

She sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

The BDA contended that the petitioner was a subsequent purchaser, that an award had been passed and possession taken, and that the acquisition was under the BDA Act.

1. Whether the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act in respect of the petitioner’s property

2. Whether, as a subsequent purchaser of land notified for acquisition, the petitioner could challenge the acquisition notifications

3. Whether the petitioner could seek consideration of her claimed occupation under Section 38D of the BDA Act

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was invoked as the basis for the petitioner’s claim that the acquisition had lapsed for non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession.

The Court relied on *Shivkumar and another v. Union of India and others*, (2019) 10 SCC 229, for the principle that a purchaser who acquires property after it has been notified for acquisition cannot assail the acquisition, as the purchaser’s rights are subordinate to the State’s interest.

The Court also permitted the petitioner to seek consideration under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, subject to establishing the relevant facts of her possession and eligibility.

The Court found that the petitioner purchased the property after the acquisition notifications had been issued and the acquisition had attained finality following an award.

Applying *Shivkumar*, it held that her status as a subsequent purchaser prevented her from challenging those notifications.

Her assertion that she remained in possession, including through a building constructed by her vendor, did not alter the validity of the acquisition or establish lapse under Section 24(2).

However, because she claimed occupation of the property, the Court allowed her to apply under Section 38D; the BDA was directed to inspect the site and determine whether the construction was within Sy. No. 7 and whether she qualified for the provision’s benefit.

It permitted the petitioner to apply under Section 38D of the BDA Act within one month, directed the BDA to decide the application within three months thereafter, and ordered that no precipitative action be taken against the construction until then.