Savitramma and others vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 10824/2009 decided on 5 October 2020. Justice M.I. Arun. Judgment link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/343263/1/WP10824-09-05-10-2020.pdf
Legislation: Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Sections 27 and 36. Land Acquisition Act.
Relevant Paragraphs: 12. The question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the scheme in respect of the petitioners’ property has lapsed and if yes, what is the effect of it.
Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 reads as follows:-“27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years.- Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of section 36 shall become inoperative.”
“16. Power to take possession. – (1) When the Deputy Commissioner has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]], free from all encumbrances.
(2) The fact of such taking possession may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner in the Official Gazette, and such notification shall be evidence of such fact.”
18. ..the land shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances only upon the Deputy Commissioner making an award and after taking possession of the land.
20(a) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2011) 3 SCC 139 (Offshore Holdings vs. BDA and others), paragraphs 38, 39 and 93 reads as under: On a conjunctive reading of the provisions of Sections 27 and 36 of the State Act, it is clear that where a scheme lapses, the acquisition may not. This, of course, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Where, upon completion of the acquisition proceedings, the land has vested in the State Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act.
Reference made to decisions in ILR 2005 KAR 295 D.Narayanappa vs. State of Karnataka and others, ILR 2012 KAR 5634 Gautam Kamat Hotels Pvt. Ltd., and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority, (1994) 1 SCC 44 Ram Chand and others vs. Union of India and others, ILR 2018 KAR 2144 BDA vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2020 SCC Online SC 316 Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, ILR 2003 KAR 3206 Narayana Setty and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2018 (3) SCC 412 Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra (dead) through legal representatives and others, .
23.To sum up the ratio laid down in the aforementioned decisions states that the purpose of BDA is to ensure organized development of the city of Bengaluru. In order to achieve it, it can acquire lands but land acquisition is not the main purpose of BDA. When it acquires land pursuant to a particular scheme and that scheme is not implemented within a time frame as prescribed in Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, the scheme lapses. If a scheme has lapsed and the lands sought to be acquired has not already vested with the BDA, acquisition proceedings in respect of those lands cannot proceed and the right of the land owners in respect of those lands revives.
25…vesting does not depend upon payment of compensation, vesting of land happens upon passing of award and taking possession of the same. Lapsing of scheme is different from lapsing of acquisition. A scheme may lapse, however, if acquisition is complete, the acquisition does not lapse. The acquiring authority can use the land for any other public purpose.
On Facts: 26. …if the land has not vested with the BDA before the lapse of the scheme, the rights of the owners revive. The main objective of BDA is development of city of Bengaluru and it can acquire lands for the said purposes. It has to acquire land only when it is required. In the instant case, though the final notification was issued in the year 1985 and possession taken in the year 2008, the land remained unutilized and has been transferred to respondent No.4 in the year 2019. Before taking possession in the year 2008, BDA contemplated to denotify the land. It goes to show that the respondent no.2 never required the land in question. Further the award was passed in the year 1988 and the amount was deposited in the Civil Court in the year 2009.
(Since there was no challenge to acquisition for Metro, the proceedings only in respect of BDA acquisition are quashed.)
Compiled by S.Basavaraj, Daksha Legal.