BDA Site Sales And Unheard Buyers Help Karnataka HC Reverse Arekere Landowners’ Win On Acquisition Lapse

The BDA acquired land in Sy. No. 79, Arekere Village, for the BTM VI Stage Layout under preliminary and final notifications issued in 1987 and 1990.

It asserted that an award was made, compensation deposited, and possession taken in 1994; sites were subsequently formed and allotted or auctioned.

The original landowners sought a declaration that the scheme had lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.

The Single Judge allowed their writ petitions, finding that physical possession had not been taken and that the land was not included in the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The BDA appealed, as did site allottees and purchasers who claimed their interests were affected but had not been heard in the writ proceedings.

Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 concerns lapse where a scheme has not been substantially executed; substantial execution is assessed in light of the scheme’s nature and magnitude and the work undertaken and remaining, and not merely by isolating one parcel [para. 29, citing Kanthamma v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1984 KAR 1494].

Under the acquisition law, lawful taking of possession and vesting in the acquiring authority cannot be undone merely by a subsequent claim [paras. 27–28, citing Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129].

Article 300-A of the Constitution protects against deprivation of property except by authority of law, although allotments and conveyances do not immunise purchasers from a lawful challenge to the underlying acquisition or title [para. 26].

An earlier direction to consider a representation under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act did not itself direct denotification or determine that the acquisition had failed [paras. 20, 24].

The Court held that the Single Judge’s lapse finding could not be sustained without considering the full acquisition record and subsequent use of the land.

The BDA’s records and earlier proceedings referred to possession being taken and compensation deposited; its pleadings also asserted that sites had been formed and allotted.

The allotments, registered conveyances, and 2007 auction sale of Site No. 352 were material to possession and implementation, and had preceded the impugned order.

The Court further found that the site owners’ claimed interests were directly affected and that the writ order had been made without hearing them or examining the relevant transaction particulars.

In light of the delay, prior litigation, possession material and site transactions, the Single Judge had not adequately considered circumstances central to the Section 27 question.

The connected appeals by site owners and purchasers, W.A. Nos. 1302/2018 and 1421/2014, were disposed of in terms of the judgment; there was no order as to costs.