BDA acquisition proceedings lapse when the scheme is substantially unimplemented and possession was never actually taken.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 2 acres 4 guntas in Survey No. 82, Banaswadi Village, which was included in the Bangalore Development Authority’s (BDA) acquisition for the “New Layout to the East of NGEF.”

The land was covered by the preliminary notification dated 28 May 1984 and final notification dated 23 October 1986; an award was made in 1988, and a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in 1991.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court had noted the BDA’s conflicting positions on de-notification and the continued presence of buildings on the land, and directed the State to consider the BDA’s recommendation for de-notification.

The State rejected de-notification on 23 September 2015, prompting the present petition, which sought to quash that order and declare the acquisition lapsed.

1. Whether the acquisition of the petitioner’s land had lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act because the scheme was not substantially implemented and the land had not vested through actual taking of possession.

2. Whether the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, had locus standi to challenge the acquisition as lapsed.

Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act provides for the scheme to lapse, and makes further acquisition proceedings under Section 36 inoperative, where the scheme is not substantially executed within the prescribed period.

Under Sections 16 and 36 of the Land Acquisition Act and the BDA Act respectively, vesting depends on completion of acquisition and taking of possession; a scheme’s lapse does not undo land already vested in the State.

Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority explains that distinction and the effect of Section 27.

Prahlad Singh v. Union of India holds that vesting under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act presupposes actual taking of possession.

The Court also relied on D. Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka concerning proof of actual possession, and on a Division Bench decision holding that a mahazar with unidentifiable witnesses cannot be relied upon.

The Court found that the possession mahazar dated 28 June 1988 was in a cyclostyled form and lacked adequate particulars of the panchas, so it did not establish actual possession; the earlier writ order and the continued existence of buildings also supported the conclusion that the petitioner remained in possession.

Accordingly, the Section 16(2) notification did not, on the material before the Court, establish vesting.

The Court further noted that less than 20% of the total notified area had been utilised for the layout, and concluded that the scheme had not been implemented to the extent required under Section 27.

It also accepted that a subsequent purchaser could challenge the acquisition where the proceedings had lapsed.