A subsequent purchaser cannot invoke Section 24(2) to invalidate a completed BDA acquisition.

The petitioner claimed title to and possession of a building on the southern portion of Site No. 14 in Sy. No. 41/1, Hennur Village, through successive transactions culminating in a sale deed dated 31 July 2013.

The land had been notified for acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in 1978, with a final notification issued in 1985.

The respondents stated that an award was passed in 1986 and possession was taken on 31 December 1986.

The petitioner sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, alleging that she remained in possession and had received no compensation.

The Court noted that the petitioner acquired the property after the acquisition had attained finality.

Whether the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser of land notified for acquisition, could challenge the acquisition as having lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Whether, in view of the petitioner’s claim of possession and the construction on the property, she could seek consideration of her occupation under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was invoked by the petitioner on the basis that acquisition may lapse where compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken; the respondents disputed its application to an acquisition under the BDA Act.

Relying on Shivkumar v. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 229, the Court applied the principle that a purchaser who acquires property after it has been notified for acquisition cannot challenge the acquisition, as the purchaser’s rights are subservient to the State’s interest.

The Court also permitted the petitioner to seek consideration under Section 38D of the BDA Act, subject to establishing the relevant facts and eligibility.

The acquisition notifications preceded the petitioner’s purchase, and the Court noted that an award had been passed.

Applying Shivkumar, it held that the petitioner’s status as a subsequent purchaser prevented her from using Section 24(2) to invalidate the acquisition; her assertion that she or her vendor possessed the property and had constructed a building did not alter that result.

However, because she claimed to be in possession, the Court allowed her to apply under Section 38D.

It directed the BDA to inspect the site, determine whether the construction was on the acquired land, and consider whether she qualified for relief under that provision.

It permitted the petitioner to apply to the BDA under Section 38D within one month of receiving the order and directed the BDA to decide the application within three months thereafter.

Until then, the respondents were directed not to take precipitative action against any construction on the property.