BDA Abandoned Acquisition of Excluded Land and Cannot Disturb the Owners’ Possession.

The petitioners, legal heirs of S. Thippaiah, sought relief concerning 34 guntas in Sy.No.63/P and 5 guntas in Sy.No.62/22 at Hemmigepura Village, which had been included in the acquisition for the Banashankari VI Stage layout.

After the preliminary and final notifications, an award was passed; on the predecessor’s request, BDA considered excluding land where wells and structures existed, and supplementary awards were passed for reduced areas in July 2002.

The petitioners alleged that BDA had abandoned acquisition of the remaining 34 guntas and 5 guntas but was threatening to dispossess them.

They sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed and that BDA could not interfere with their possession.

1. Whether the acquisition proceedings concerning the disputed lands had lapsed.

2. Whether BDA had abandoned acquisition of 34 guntas in Sy.No.63/P and 5 guntas in Sy.No.62/22, and could take further steps to dispossess the petitioners or form a layout on those extents.

The acquisition was undertaken under Sections 17 and 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, which provide for preliminary notification and final notification, respectively.

The Court did not cite any precedent or state a general statutory test for abandonment.

It treated BDA’s consideration of the exclusion request, the supplementary awards reducing the acquired areas, and the absence of any subsequent award for the disputed extents as establishing abandonment in respect of those lands.

The Court rejected the argument that the entire acquisition had lapsed, but distinguished the disputed extents from the lands covered by the supplementary awards.

BDA’s records showed that officials had recommended excluding the relevant land because of wells and structures and because no layout had been formed there; supplementary awards reduced the acquired areas accordingly.

As no award had thereafter been passed for the remaining 34 guntas and 5 guntas, the Court concluded that BDA had abandoned acquisition of those extents and could not proceed against the petitioners’ possession or form a layout there.

It nevertheless held that BDA had abandoned acquisition of 34 guntas in Sy.No.63/P and 5 guntas in Sy.No.62/22.

It directed that any BDA entry in the revenue records for those extents be deleted and the petitioners’ names restored, and restrained BDA and its officials from taking action injurious to the petitioners’ possession, right, title, or interest in those lands.