Section 27 lapse is assessed scheme-wide; an undeveloped individual parcel does not invalidate substantial implementation.

The Bangalore Development Authority (“BDA”) issued a preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (“BDA Act”) on 29 December 1988, followed by a final notification under Section 19(1) on 9 May 1994, for acquisition of lands measuring 1,458 acres 21 guntas for the Banashankari V Stage Layout Scheme.

After the earlier final notification was quashed for want of Government sanction, a fresh declaration was issued on 16 September 1997.

The landowner’s property, measuring 2 acres 21 guntas in Sy. No. 89, Uttarahalli Village, formed part of the notified land.

The landowner had previously challenged the acquisition in W.P. No. 3334/2000, which was dismissed on 8 July 2002; the connected writ appeal was withdrawn.

A subsequent W.P. No. 10165/2008 and the appeal arising from it were also disposed of after permitting withdrawal and directing the landowner to pursue remedies before the BDA.

The BDA asserted that an award had been passed and possession was taken through a mahazar on 2 August 1999, followed by publication of a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“LA Act”).

In 2021, after the BDA executed a registered sale deed in favour of the Karnataka Income Tax Department House Building Co-operative Society, the landowner filed W.P. No. 16071/2021.

The learned Single Judge held that the scheme had not been substantially implemented under Section 27 of the BDA Act and that lawful possession had not been established, principally because the possession mahazar was cyclostyled and revenue records continued to show the landowner’s name.

The writ petition was consequently allowed and the acquisition proceedings concerning the landowner’s property were quashed. The BDA and the Society preferred the present appeals.

1. Whether the Banashankari V Stage Layout Scheme, assessed as a whole, had substantially been executed within the meaning of Section 27 of the BDA Act, notwithstanding that the landowner’s individual parcel was not developed.

2. Whether the landowner could reopen the issue of lawful possession and validity of the acquisition despite the earlier rounds of litigation and the Section 16(2) notification evidencing possession.

Section 27 of the BDA Act provides that a development scheme lapses only where the Authority fails to execute it substantially within five years from publication of the Section 19(1) declaration; “substantial execution” is assessed with reference to the scheme as a whole, not every individual parcel.

Sections 27 and 36 of the BDA Act operate distinctly: lapse of a scheme does not automatically or necessarily invalidate acquisition proceedings, the consequences depending on the stage of acquisition, as held in Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2011) 3 SCC 139.

The Court relied on M. Maridev v. State of Karnataka, 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 219, Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, W.A. No. 914/2024, Bangalore Development Authority v. Dr. H.S. Hanumanthappa, ILR 1996 Kar 542, and A. Krishnamurthy v. Bangalore Development Authority, 1996 (3) Kar LJ 306, for the principle that substantial implementation must be judged with reference to the entire development scheme.

It further relied on Smt. Madduramma v. State of Karnataka, W.A. No. 391/2019, which specifically held that the Banashankari V Stage Scheme had become a full-fledged residential layout and that quashing acquisition of some parcels did not cause the entire scheme to lapse.

Under Sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the LA Act, taking possession vests the land in the State free from encumbrances, and a notification under Section 16(2) constitutes evidence of possession, as recognised in P.K. Kalburqi v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 12 SCC 489, and N.A.L. Layout Residents Association v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2018) 12 SCC 400.

Earlier adjudication, together with the doctrines of finality of litigation, res judicata and delay and laches, prevents repeated reopening of substantially identical acquisition challenges.

The Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge applied the wrong unit of assessment by treating the non-development of the landowner’s individual parcel as determinative of whether the entire Banashankari V Stage Scheme had lapsed.

Section 27 requires an assessment of the scheme in its entirety.

The scheme extended over 1,458 acres 21 guntas and had resulted in substantial layout formation, development, and allotment of sites; earlier Coordinate Bench decisions had also conclusively recognised it as a full-fledged residential layout.

Consequently, the fact that some lands remained undeveloped, litigated or acquired proceedings were quashed in respect of particular parcels did not establish failure of substantial execution.

The Court further held that the Single Judge’s conclusion regarding possession could not support lapse of the scheme or invalidation of the acquisition.

The Section 16(2) notification, read with the possession mahazar, constituted statutory evidence that possession had been taken on 2 August 1999, resulting in vesting under Section 16(1) of the LA Act.

In any event, the landowner had previously challenged the acquisition and possession, and the earlier proceedings had recorded that possession was taken.

The subsequent writ petition, filed in 2021, impermissibly sought to reopen issues already considered and concluded, apart from being affected by prolonged delay.

Since the scheme had not lapsed and possession had vested, the basis for quashing the acquisition and the consequential sale deed was unsustainable.

The appeals filed by the BDA and the Society were allowed, and the learned Single Judge’s order dated 27 January 2025 in W.P. No. 16071/2021 was set aside.

The BDA was additionally directed to take lawful steps for removal of the encroachment by the National Public School over the acquired land, at the cost of the school’s owners, if it had not already been removed.

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.