No Layout Or Sites On 13 Guntas: Bengaluru HC Declares BDA’s BTM IV Stage Scheme Lapsed For That Land

The petitioners sought a declaration that acquisition of 13 guntas in Sy. No. 100/3, Bilekahalli Village, for the BTM IV Stage layout had lapsed under Section 27 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (“BDA Act”).

The land was included in preliminary and final notifications dated 6 August 1988 and 3 November 1990.

The petitioners asserted that possession remained with them and that the scheme had not been implemented; the BDA maintained that possession had been taken in 1998 and an award passed in 1999.

The BDA also objected that the petition was belated and that the petitioners were subsequent purchasers.

The Court asked the BDA whether a layout had been formed or sites allotted in the petitioners’ land; the BDA confirmed that neither had occurred.

1. Whether the BTM IV Stage layout scheme, insofar as it concerned the petitioners’ land, had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act for non-implementation.

2. Whether purchasers who acquired land after the acquisition notifications could challenge the acquisition on the ground that the scheme had lapsed.

Section 27 of the BDA Act provides the basis for treating a scheme as lapsed where the statutory requirements for its implementation are not met within the prescribed period; the Court applied the five-year non-implementation principle as addressed in earlier decisions concerning the BTM IV Stage layout.

It relied on coordinate Bench decisions, including W.P. Nos. 12646–647/2010, W.P. No. 27644/2016 and W.P. No. 21831/2016, which had held that the scheme had lapsed.

The judgment records that challenges to those decisions were dismissed in W.A. No. 3884/2019 and W.A. No. 741/2021, with the SLP arising from the latter also dismissed.

The Court treated the issue as covered by the prior decisions holding that the BTM IV Stage scheme had lapsed.

In addition, the BDA confirmed that it had neither formed a layout nor allotted sites in the petitioners’ land, supporting the conclusion that the scheme had not been implemented in respect of that property.

The Court therefore applied the prior rulings to the petitioners’ land and declared the scheme lapsed.

It did not decide whether subsequent purchasers are entitled to challenge an acquisition, expressly reserving that question because of the case’s particular facts.

The Court declared that the scheme for formation of the BTM IV Stage layout had lapsed insofar as it concerned the petitioners’ land in Sy. No. 100/3, pursuant to the notifications dated 6 August 1988 and 3 November 1990.

The question whether a subsequent purchaser may challenge an acquisition was left open.