Acquisition did not lapse under the BDA Act or Section 24(2) while its validity challenge remained pending.

The petitioner claimed ownership of three acres in Survey No. 56, Kodigehalli Village, acquired through sale deeds executed in 2001 and 2003.

The land was included in the acquisition for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout.

After the final notification dated 18 February 2010, the petitioner objected to the acquisition, but alleged that the authorities neither took possession nor determined or paid compensation.

He 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 (“2013 Act”) or Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (“BDA Act”), or, alternatively, a direction to determine compensation under the 2013 Act.

The BDA submitted that a Division Bench had upheld the acquisition in W.A. No. 1783/2014 and connected appeals, while permitting affected landowners to seek exclusion of their lands by representation.

1. Whether the acquisition of the petitioner’s land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act or Section 27 of the BDA Act.

2. Whether the petitioner should pursue the remedy of seeking exclusion of the land by representation under the Division Bench’s decision, rather than obtain the relief sought in the petition.

The petitioner invoked Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, concerning lapse of acquisition in specified circumstances, and Section 27 of the BDA Act, concerning the consequence of failure to execute an approved scheme within the prescribed period.

The Court applied the Division Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 1783/2014 and connected appeals, which upheld the acquisition but permitted landowners to seek exclusion of their lands on the grounds identified in that decision.

The Court reasoned that where the acquisition’s validity attained finality only in 2024, the authority could not be expected to form the layout while the challenge to the acquisition remained pending.

The Court noted that the acquisition had been challenged and that the Division Bench ultimately upheld it, while providing a route for landowners to seek exclusion of their lands.

Since the acquisition’s validity attained finality only in 2024, the Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act or Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, reasoning that the BDA could not have been expected to implement the layout during the pendency of the challenge.

The Court therefore directed the petitioner to use the representation procedure made available by the Division Bench.

The petitioner was permitted to apply within one month of receiving the order for exclusion of his land on grounds recognised by the Division Bench; the BDA was directed to decide the representation within three months of receiving it.

Pending that decision, the respondents were restrained from taking precipitative steps to vandalise, damage, or destroy standing trees or buildings on the property.

The petitioner was restrained from constructing, reconstructing, modifying, or altering any building there until the representation was decided; any construction made in breach of the order could be removed after notice.