Belated challenges to finalized land acquisitions fail on grounds of delay and laches after prior proceedings.

The appellants’ 4 acres and 20 guntas in Survey No. 17/12, Kathriguppe Village, were included in a preliminary acquisition notification issued in 1968 and a final notification issued in 1971 under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945.

The appellants later agreed to sell the land to respondent No. 3, a housing society, and executed sale deeds in 1981 conveying 4 acres. They claimed the remaining 20 guntas had not been conveyed or taken possession of and had been de-notified by a 1979 government order.

An earlier writ petition concerning de-notification was withdrawn after an appeal; a subsequent civil suit seeking declarations and injunctions over the land was dismissed, with an appeal pending.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants’ 2016 writ petitions, finding, among other things, that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act did not apply to the acquisition, and that the claims were barred by delay and the principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC.

The appellants challenged that dismissal in this writ appeal.

1. Whether the appellants established that the remaining 20 guntas had been excluded from the acquisition, or that the acquisition had been abandoned in respect of that extent.

2. Whether the appellants could pursue the renewed challenge to the acquisition despite the prior writ proceedings, the dismissal of their civil suit, and the substantial delay.

3. Whether Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applied to an acquisition initiated under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945.

The acquisition was initiated under Section 16 of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945.

The Court accepted the learned Single Judge’s conclusion that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act did not apply to an acquisition initiated under that Act.

The Court also affirmed the application of the principles underlying Section 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the appellants’ successive proceedings seeking substantially similar relief.

A challenge to a final acquisition brought after several decades may be rejected for delay and laches; the Court found no basis to disturb the Single Judge’s application of that principle.

No precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found no order excluding the disputed 20 guntas from the acquisition and held that the sale deeds conveying 4 acres to the Society did not, by themselves, establish that the remaining extent had been de-notified.

The joint memo in the earlier writ proceeding was signed by the appellants and the Society, but not the BDA; moreover, the writ petition had been dismissed because of a statutory amendment, and was later withdrawn in appeal.

The civil court had dismissed the appellants’ claim concerning both the 4 acres and the 20 guntas, and that finding had not been reversed, notwithstanding the pending appeal.

The Court also upheld the finding that endorsements relied on by the appellants did not overcome the acquisition records, and that the challenge was brought after an extensive delay.

It accordingly found no error in the Single Judge’s decision, including its conclusions concerning the 2013 Act and the effect of the prior proceedings.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.