Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisitions under the BDA Act.

The respondent claimed ownership of four guntas in Sy. No. 3/1B, Agara Village, through his father’s 1946 sale deed.

The BDA included the land in notifications issued in 1984 and 1986 for formation of HSR Layout.

After earlier proceedings in which the High Court directed the BDA to consider the respondent’s representations, the respondent filed W.P. No. 48932/2014 seeking to quash the acquisition, alleging abandonment and lapse.

The Single Judge allowed the petition and quashed the notifications insofar as the land was concerned.

The BDA appealed, contending, among other things, that an award had been passed, compensation deposited, possession taken, and the scheme implemented; it also challenged the petition as delayed.

Whether the BDA had established sufficient grounds to interfere with the Single Judge’s order quashing the acquisition proceedings as abandoned or lapsed.

Whether the acquisition could be treated as lapsed in light of the award and possession records, the respondent’s earlier requests for reconveyance, the delay in approaching the Court, and the asserted inapplicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

The acquisition was initiated under Sections 17 and 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.

The Court stated that a declaration that acquisition proceedings have lapsed requires proof that the authority failed to execute the scheme.

It also held that Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, does not apply to acquisition initiated under the BDA Act, relying on Civil Appeal Nos. 7661–7663/2018; the judgment does not identify the precedent by case name.

The judgment also considered the Land Acquisition Act records concerning the award, compensation, possession and a reference for enhanced compensation.

The Division Bench found that the Single Judge had concluded that the acquisition was abandoned without verifiable material supporting that finding.

The record included an award for the land, deposit of compensation, a notice concerning the award, and documents recording that the land had been handed over to the BDA’s engineering section and that a Section 16(2) notification had issued.

The respondent’s own earlier representations sought reconveyance and acknowledged that part of the land had been used for a road, while asserting that a 40-by-60-foot portion remained.

The Bench also noted that the challenge was brought nearly 28 years after the final notification, that the BDA had implemented the layout, and that the respondent had not produced material showing failure to execute the scheme.

It therefore found no basis to sustain the Single Judge’s conclusion that the acquisition had lapsed.

No order was made as to costs; pending applications were disposed of as no longer requiring consideration.