Vesting of acquired land is irrevocable upon possession; subsequent withdrawal without formal notification is legally impermissible.

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) initiated land acquisition in 2000 for the Banashankari VI Stage Layout, covering 2,138 acres. A Final Notification was issued on 21.08.2001.

Awards were passed between 2001 and 2002, and compensation was deposited.

Possession of the subject lands (Sy. Nos. 78/11, 84, 16/1, etc.) was taken via mahazars in 2001-2002, and a Section 16(2) notification was published in 2003.

Despite the implementation of the scheme (formation of sites, roads, and allotments to third parties), landowners challenged the acquisition in 2019 via W.P. No. 52299/2019.

While that petition was pending, they filed a second petition (W.P. No. 16865/2022) for similar reliefs without disclosing the first.

A Single Judge allowed the second petition, declaring the acquisition lapsed due to "abandonment" and failure to take physical possession.

Section 27 of the BDA Act regarding the lapsing of schemes and Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which permits withdrawal from acquisition only before possession is taken.

Principle of Vesting under Section 16, whereby land vests absolutely in the State free from encumbrances once possession is recorded via mahazar.

Doctrine against "Bench Hunting" and abuse of process.

Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (2020) regarding the validity of possession through panchnama for large tracts of land and the preclusion of stale claims by the doctrine of laches.

The Court found the respondents guilty of "forum shopping" and "bench hunting" by filing a second petition for identical relief while the first was pending before a different judge, then withdrawing the first without liberty.

On merits, the Court held that the Single Judge erred in relying on the 2002 Commissioner’s letter and revenue entries to negate possession.

Applying Indore Development Authority, the Court reasoned that the drawing of mahazars and the 2003 Section 16(2) notification constituted valid legal possession, resulting in absolute vesting of title in the State.

Consequently, Section 48(1) could not be invoked as possession had already passed.

Given that the BDA had already formed the layout and allotted sites, the Court determined the scheme was substantially implemented and the challenge after 21 years was fatally delayed.

The Division Bench allowed the appeals, set aside the Single Judge’s order, and dismissed the writ petition. W.P. No. 16865/2022 was dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- for gross abuse of the process of the Court and fraud.