BDA acquisition upheld on appeal does not lapse under Sections 27 or 24(2).

The petitioner claimed ownership of 23 guntas in Sy. No. 94, Ramasandra Village, acquired under a sale deed dated 11 April 2008.

The land was included in the acquisition for the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout under a preliminary notification dated 21 May 2008 and a final notification dated 18 February 2010.

The petitioner sought to have the acquisition declared lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act) and Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and also challenged the notifications.

He relied on the alleged failure to implement the scheme and take possession; the BDA responded that a Division Bench had set aside an earlier judgment quashing the acquisition and had upheld the notifications, subject to directions for considering applications seeking exclusion of land.

Whether the acquisition had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act or Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Whether the preliminary and final acquisition notifications should be quashed in respect of the petitioner’s land.

Whether the petitioner could seek exclusion of his land through a representation to the BDA under the directions issued by the Division Bench.

Section 27 of the BDA Act and Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 were invoked as grounds for lapse of the acquisition.

The Court relied on the Division Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 1783 of 2014 and connected appeals, which upheld the acquisition notifications but permitted landowners, subject to specified conditions, to apply to the BDA for exclusion of their lands.

The BDA was directed to consider such applications, and possession was to remain undisturbed while the relevant applications were considered.

The Court treated the Division Bench’s decision as governing the acquisition challenge: the notifications had been upheld, and landowners seeking exclusion were directed to pursue the prescribed application process.

Although the petitioner asserted that no award had been passed and that the scheme had not been implemented, the Court rejected lapse under both statutory provisions and declined to quash the notifications.

It instead directed the petitioner to seek exclusion through a representation to the BDA, which would consider it in accordance with the Division Bench’s directions.

The Court rejected the claims that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act or Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and rejected the challenge to the preliminary and final notifications.

The petitioner was directed to submit a representation seeking exclusion within one month of receiving the order; the BDA must decide it within three months thereafter.

Until the representation is considered, the BDA must not take precipitative action against the petitioner’s property.