After 23 Years Without An Award, Karnataka HC Quashes BDA Acquisition Of 15 Guntas As Abandoned

The petitioners claimed ownership of a total of 15 guntas in Sy. No. 12/5B, Hosahalli village.

The land was included in a preliminary acquisition notification issued under Sections 17(1) and 17(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act), followed by a final notification under Section 19(1).

The BDA had earlier recommended reducing the acquisition in that survey number from 15 to 5 guntas, but later withdrew that recommendation.

No award had been passed and possession had not been taken.

The petitioners sought declarations that the acquisition had been abandoned or had lapsed, including under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; they also relied on the BDA’s correspondence concerning the land’s non-requirement and the completed road.

The acquisition was initiated under Sections 17(1) and 17(3) of the BDA Act and finalized under Section 19(1).

The Court applied the principle that, in the circumstances of this case, the acquiring authority’s failure to pass an award within a reasonable time, considered together with its conduct and the evidence that the land was not needed, supported a finding that the acquisition had been abandoned.

The respondents relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore v. Anasuya Bai concerning the inapplicability of Section 24(2) to acquisitions under the BDA Act, but the Court did not decide the petition on that statutory ground.

The preliminary and final notifications dated 2002 and 2003 had remained unimplemented: no award had been passed and possession had not been taken.

The BDA’s own correspondence had proposed excluding 10 guntas, and the material before the Court indicated that the land was beyond the completed 100-foot road and was not required for the proposed road or layout.

Considering these circumstances together, the Court found that the acquisition had been abandoned.

It did not hold that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act or Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

The preliminary and final notifications were quashed insofar as they related to that land.

If the BDA’s name had been entered in the revenue records for the land, it was to be deleted and the petitioners’ names restored for their respective portions.

The petitioners were not to obstruct or claim rights over the 100-foot road.