Substantial implementation of development scheme precludes lapsing of land acquisition under the BDA Act.

The dispute concerns the acquisition of lands in Survey Nos. 47/1, 47/3, 47/4, and 47/5 at Gubbalala Village for the formation of the "Further Extension of Banashankari VI Stage Layout"

The Preliminary Notification was issued on 07.11.2002, followed by a Final Notification on 09.09.2003

An award was passed on 12.12.2003, and the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) claimed to have taken possession on 08.01.2004

The petitioners (landowners), through a GPA holder, challenged these notifications in 2016—approximately 12 years after the acquisition—alleging that possession was never legally taken, compensation was not deposited in court, and the scheme had lapsed

The Learned Single Judge (LSJ) quashed the notifications on 27.01.2025, holding that the BDA failed to prove legal possession or deposit of compensation

The BDA appealed, asserting substantial implementation of the scheme, including the allotment of 53 sites and infrastructure development

The court primarily applied Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) Act, 1976, which governs the lapsing of schemes

It relied on the precedent in Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority (2011) 3 SCC 139, which established that the BDA Act is a self-contained code and that Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act (regarding lapsing) does not apply to it

the court applied the principles from Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129, clarifying that "paid" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act includes tendering amount to the treasury and that the refusal of a landowner to accept compensation does not lead to the lapsing of proceedings

The Division Bench found that the LSJ failed to appreciate the substantial implementation of the project. Evidence, including Google Maps (2000–2025) and an affidavit from the BDA Commissioner, demonstrated that 53 sites had been allotted, conveyance deeds registered, roads formed, and houses constructed by allottees

Citing Offshore Holdings, the court noted that once substantial development commences, the acquisition cannot be deemed to have lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act

Regarding the 2013 Act, the court held that since the award amount was deposited in the Treasury and the BDA had taken steps for possession, Section 24(2) was inapplicable, especially as the proceedings were concluded under the BDA Act

The court also emphasized that the 12-year delay in challenging the notifications was fatal, particularly as third-party rights (allottees) had intervened and the LSJ had brushed aside the issue of laches

Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge. The writ petitions were dismissed, and all intra-court appeals filed by the BDA and the allottees were allowed