Karnataka High Court
Mrs Shobha vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.40515 OF 2011(LA - BDA)
BETWEEN:
MRS.SHOBHA
W/O LATE D.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1240,
32ND 'G' CROSS, IV 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.M.NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BENGALURU - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LA)
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2
BENGALURU - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE FINAL
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.HUD 444 MNX 86 DATED 28.11.1986
PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 25.12.1986 VIDE ANNEXURE-F
BY THE R1, IS INCAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT IN RESPECT OF
SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HOSUR ROAD
SARJAPUR ROAD SCHEME HAS LAPSED IN SO FAR AS THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED & CONSEQUENTLY QUASH
THE AWARD BEARING NO.BDA/DC(LA)/AWARD/G1/3917/2005-06
DATED 6.12.2005 APPROVED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-W AND
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question Final
Notification dated 28-11-1986 notified for acquisition of lands for
formation of 'Hosur Road and Sarjapura Road Layout' ('HSR' layout
for short) on the score that the scheme has lapsed.
3
2. Heard Sri C.M. Nagabushana, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and
Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -
3.1. On 08-06-1974 through two registered sale deeds, the
petitioner purchases schedule lands. Pursuant to the said purchase,
the revenue records, mutation entries and all other statutory
entries showed the name of the petitioner. During subsistence of
ownership of the petitioner, the respondent/Bangalore Development
Authority ('BDA' for short) issues preliminary notification under
Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('the
Act' for short) for formation of HSR Layout on 15-12-1984.
Pursuant to the preliminary notification, the petitioner is said to
have filed her objections thereto on 25-03-1985. On 13-11-1986
the Scheme under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act is approved by the
Government for formation of entire stretch along with Hosur
National Highway. After approval of the Scheme, a final notification
4
comes to be issued under Section 19 of the Act, on 28-11-1986.
The averment in the petition is that the name of the petitioner is
not shown in the preliminary notification and the final notification.
Notice is issued to the petitioner under Sections 11 and 14 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act'
for short) despite her name not being included in the final
notification. The petitioner was directed to appear in person with
reference to her claim.
3.2. The petitioner then files her objections to the said public
notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act, requesting to drop
her land from acquisition proceedings, since her land was fully
developed. The BDA does not heed to the said objections, but goes
on to proceed further with the acquisition. The petitioner then files
another objection contending that she has already constructed a
Kalyana Mantapa in her land and, therefore, the land should be
dropped from acquisition. The petitioner also submits another
representation on 15-06-1988, pursuant to which, a joint inspection
is conducted on the land of the petitioner, wherein it is found that
various structures have come up including Kalyana Mantapa and
5
opinion of the joint inspection was that it was difficult to bifurcate
vacant land and built-up area. Therefore, the petitioner's land
should be dropped from acquisition.
3.3. In the interregnum, another notification comes to be
issued seeking to acquire 4 guntas of land of the petitioner for the
purpose of formation of National Highway. The said acquisition also
gets completed and compensation is paid to the petitioner only
insofar as 4 guntas of land is concerned. On 6-12-2005, after
about 18 years of issue of final notification, an award is passed in
respect of acquisition of petitioner's land. In the award it is
indicated that out of 6 acres and 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.31/3,
only 1 acre 27 guntas of land is vacant. Hence, the award was
restricted only to the vacant land of 1 acre 27 guntas. Here again,
it is the averment in the petition that the name of the petitioner
was not shown in the award, either as owner or person interested.
3.4. On 16-08-2006, a Notification is issued under Section
16(2) of the LA Act which shows that 3 guntas of petitioner's land
was acquired by the National Highways Authorities and the
6
notification confirms that possession of petitioner's land measuring
7 guntas is taken over by the National Highways Authorities. The
petitioner then owing to constant apprehension of acquisition either
without payment of compensation or otherwise, institutes
O.S.No.25858 of 2008 before the civil Court seeking perpetual
injunction, fearing threat of dispossession by the BDA. The suit is
entertained and status quo is directed to be maintained by the
parties. On 15-09-2011, the BDA sought to demolish the building
situated in the land of the petitioner, despite the order of status
quo. It is after the said incident the present petition is filed seeking
to quash the final notification insofar as the land of the petitioner is
concerned, on the score that the Scheme had lapsed and also
sought consequential directions.
3.5. Several petitions were filed challenging the said
acquisition. All the petitions were clubbed together and the matter
was withdrawn by the Division Bench, as identical matters were
pending before the Division Bench. On 16-06-2023 the Division
Bench dismisses the subject writ petition holding that award was
passed on 14-10-2005, land was already taken possession and sites
7
after formation are already allotted to general public. It was further
held that the petitioners therein had not demonstrated as to how
the Scheme had not been implemented and the construction of
Kalyana Mantapa after issuance of final notification was in violation
of law.
3.6. On 10-07-2023 after looking into the order, the
petitioner files a review petition in R.P.No.321 of 2023 challenging
the dismissal of the present writ petition. The Division bench allows
the review petition, recalls the order dated 16-06-2023 and
restores the present petition to file. It is thus, the present petition
is back to the hands of this Court for re-hearing.
4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that award is passed in respect of 1 acre 27
guntas, which itself is discriminatory as there is no reason as to
how a layout can be formed within 1 acre 27 guntas. Several other
parcels of land of several other measurements belonging to other
persons are de-notified from acquisition proceedings. The petitioner
was issued a notice under Section 11 of the LA Act on 13-02-1987,
8
but the award dated 06-12-2005 does not indicate the name of the
petitioner. No award notice was issued to the petitioner under
Section 12(2) of the LA Act. The petitioner becomes aware of the
award when the BDA filed its written statement in O.S.No.25858 of
2008. The acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 27 of
the Act, since the proposed Scheme has not been implemented
even after 5 years from the date of final notification. There is a
delay of 18 years from the date of issuance of final notification to
the date of passing of the award.
4.2. In terms of the mahazar drawn, the learned counsel
would submit that possession was purportedly taken on 24-08-
2006, but the BDA sought to take possession of the land only on
15-09-2011. The award dated 06-12-2005 wrongly hold that vacant
area of petitioner's land is acquired leaving upon the built-up area.
The learned counsel submits that the present writ petition was
previously tagged with Writ Appeal No.4583 of 2011 and connected
matters. The said writ appeals were also pertaining to the formation
of HSR Layout. Those appeals came to be allowed and the
preliminary notification and the final notification qua those petitions
9
were quashed and the SLP against the said order comes to be
dismissed. On all these grounds, the learned counsel submits that
the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for in the petition.
5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the BDA
would submit that the preliminary notification was issued on
15-12-1984. Upon becoming aware of acquisition proceedings, the
petitioner cannot claim that she was ignorant of acquisition
proceedings and challenge it in the year 2011. The petitioner had
filed her objections when notice was issued under Sections 11 and
14 of the LA Act. However, the petitioner neither challenged the
acquisition proceedings nor availed any remedy available in law. All
that the petitioner did was filing a suit in O.S.No.25858 of 2008,
due to which the BDA could not take possession. The Kalyan
Mantapa was constructed after issuance of final notification, when
the property had vested with the BDA. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot seek the relief on the ground that the Scheme has lapsed.
5.2. The learned counsel submits that once the land is vested
in the State in terms of Section 16 of the LA Act, the acquisition will
10
not lapse or terminate as a result of lapsing of the Scheme under
Section 27 of the Act. Non-issuance of notice under Section 16(2)
of the LA Act to the petitioner would not vitiate the acquisition. The
delay in passing the award also is not a ground to hold that
acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates, link in the chain of events
are all a matter of record, which would not require any reiteration.
It is an admitted fact that the name of the petitioner is not found
either in the preliminary notification or the final notification. On
coming to know of the fact that a preliminary notification was
issued, objections were filed by the petitioner on 25-03-1985, albeit
beyond the statutory period of 30 days. No notice whatsoever was
issued to the petitioner even under Section 12(2) of the LA Act, to
hear the petitioner on passing of the award. A public notice was
issued to all and sundry or all the stake holders. Looking at that,
11
the petitioner filed objections to the acquisition proceedings. The
award is passed on 6-12-2005. But, the name of the petitioner is
not included in the award. No award notice under Section 12(2) of
the LA Act is issued to the petitioner. These are admitted facts.
8. The award clearly shows that only vacant land in
Sy.No.31/3 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas is acquired. The contention
of the petitioner is that no parcel of land is vacant, as it is already
developed. On these very objections, at one point in time prior to
passing of the order, a joint inspection had been conducted. It
becomes necessary to notice the report of joint inspection. The
report of joint inspection reads as follows:
"JOINT INSPECTION OF SALAO & EE PROJECT
We have jointly inspected Sy.No.31/3 of Rupena Agrahara
on 8-10-1990.This survey number measures 6 acres 26 guntas.
The following structures were existing on this land at the time of
our inspection.
(1) A.C. Sheet roofed houses. - 31
(2) R.C.C. Houses. -2
(3) M.T.R. Houses - 1 Kalyana
Mantap
(4) Stone/revitted D.W.Wells -
(5) Cement ringed D.W. Wells -4
(6) Stone foundation -
(7) Several types of structures -
12
The above structures are scattered all over this
survey number without leaving any vacant land. It is not
possible to bifurcate the vacant land built up area. In our
opinion this survey number should be deleted from
Notification.
This land is partly covered with structures, leaving
some vacant land. In our opinion, the vacant land
measuring 2.39 guntas may be acquired after leaving the
built-up area measuring 3.27 guntas."
(Emphasis added)
This was the report of joint inspection that took place detailing that
structures are scattered all over Sy.No.31/3 measuring 6 acres 26
guntas without leaving any vacant land. It was further opined that
it was not possible to bifurcate the vacant land and built up area.
The final opinion was that this Survey No. 31/3 measuring 6 acres
26 guntas should be deleted from the notification. However, it is
also stated in the joint inspection report that the vacant land to the
extent of 2 acres 39 guntas could be acquired after leaving the built
up area measuring 3 acres 27 guntas.
9. One factor would become unmistakably clear that the
petitioner was in possession of the property and had put up
construction. The joint inspection was conducted by officers of the
13
BDA itself. If the facts are fast forwarded to the date of award on
14-10-2005, the award is passed under Section 12 of the LA Act in
respect of 1 acre 27 guntas and the award comes to be approved
on 06-12-2005. The award indicates that out of 6 acres 26 guntas
of land in Sy.No.31/3 only 1 acre 27 guntas of land is vacant and
hence the award is restricted only to the said extent of 1 acre 27
guntas. The land is included, but name of the petitioner is no where
found in the award, either as owner or person interested. Notice
under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was never issued to the petitioner
prior to passing of the award, ostensibly so, that the name of the
petitioner does not figure anywhere right from the preliminary
notification till passing of the award.
10. The acquisition proceedings of adjacent lands under the
very scheme had become the subject matter of Writ Appeal
No.4583 of 2011 & Connected cases. The Division Bench on the
score that acquisition proceedings have lapsed, quashes the
notifications by the following judgment:
".... .... ....
4. The singular issue, which arises for consideration in
these writ appeals and the writ petitions is 'whether the
authority is required to conclude the proceedings for acquisition
14
of land initiated by it within a reasonable time?'. Therefore, all
the aforesaid writ petitions and writ petitions were heard
analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
For the facility of reference, facts from W.A.No.4583/2011 are
being referred to.
5. The appellants claim to be the owners of land bearing
Sy.No.52/3A measuring 11,560 square feet situated at Begur
Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The Authority required the land
held by the appellants as well as several other lands for
formation of a layout. Therefore, the proceedings for acquisition
of the aforesaid land were initiated for formation of scheme.
6. The Authority issued a preliminary notification under
Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on 15.12.1984
and thereafter, a final notification under Section 19 of the Act
was issued on 28.11.1986. However, the Authority neither
passed an award nor took possession of the land in question.
The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition on 27.08.2010, in
which petitioners inter alia sought quashment of the preliminary
as well the final notifications dated 17.01.1985 and 28.11.1986
respectively, on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of
the land acquisition proceeding.
7. The Learned Single Judge by impugned order dated
04.03.2011 inter alia held that there is a delay in conclusion of
the land acquisition proceeding. However, the Learned Single
Judge by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'RAM CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA',
(1994) 1 SCC 44, held that the appellants are entitled to
additional compensation at the rate of 12% of the market value.
Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was
disposed of. In the aforesaid factual background, these intra
court appeals as well as the writ petitions arise for our
consideration.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
Learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAM CHAND supra. It is further
submitted that a division bench of this court has held that the
proceedings initiated by the Authority in respect of scheme in
relation to the land involving in that case, has held that the
15
scheme had already lapsed. In this connection, reference has
been made to the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by a division
bench of this court in W.P.No.26920/2010 (CHIKKATAYAPPA
REDDY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ANOTHER). It is pointed out that the finding recorded by the
Learned Single Judge that the appellants have locus to seek the
relief of quashment of land acquisition proceeding, has not been
assailed by the Authority. It is urged that the Learned Single
Judge ought to have appreciated that despite lapse of 24 years,
neither any award was passed nor any explanation was offered
by the Authority for not passing the award within reasonable
time and therefore, the Learned Single Judge ought to have
quashed the land acquisition proceedings in relation to the land
held by the appellants.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Authority
has supported the order passed by the Learned Single Judge
and it has been submitted that the Learned Single Judge has
rightly moulded the relief claimed by the appellants in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
10. We have considered the rival submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, the
preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Act was issued
on 15.12.1984, which was followed by a final notification on
28.11.1986, which was issued under Section 19 of the Act.
However despite, a period of 24 years till 2010 neither any
award was passed by the Authority nor the possession of the
land in question was taken from the appellants.
11. The Supreme Court held that in view of decision
in 'AFLATOON V LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI, (1975) 4 SCC
285, there was no justification for not passing the award
and by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, it was
held that two years period would be a reasonable time for
making an award, as for when the statute does not
prescribe a time limit for performing an Act, the same has
to be performed within reasonable time.
12. The right to hold the property is a constitutional
right which is guaranteed under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India and no citizen can be deprived of his
property without following the due process of law. It is
16
well settled legal proposition that where a statute does
not provide for time limit for doing an Act, such an Act
has to be done within a reasonable time, and what would
be reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and
circumstances of the Act. [See: 'MEHER RUSI DALAL V
UNION OF INDIA', (2004) 7 SCC 362, 'P.K. SREEKANTAN
V P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR', (2006) 13 SCC 574 AND 'K.B
NAGUR V UNION OF INDIA', (2012) 4 SCC 483].
Thus from the aforesaid well settled legal position,
it is evident that the proceedings under the Act have to
be concluded within a reasonable time.
13. In the instant case, admittedly, even after a
period of 24 years neither the land acquisition
proceedings were completed by passing the award nor
the possession of the land was taken. No explanation has
been offered on behalf of the Authority for the inordinate
delay in concluding the proceedings under the Act.
Therefore, we hold that there was an unreasonable and
unexplained delay in concluding the land acquisition
proceedings.
14. Now we may advert to the relief, which the appellants
are entitled. In RAM CHAND AND OTHERS supra, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dealing with a situation prevailing prior to
amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the aforesaid
case, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as well as
declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act were issued on
23.01.1959, 24.10.1961, 16.05.1966 and 13.01.1969
respectively. However, no awards were passed till 1980. In view
of the aforesaid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 25 of the
judgment held as under:
25. There appears to be some force in the
contention of the petitioners that the object of
respondents was to peg the price of the lands acquired
from the different cultivators to a distant past and not to
proceed further because if the awards had been made
soon after the declarations under Section 6, respondents
had to pay or tender the compensation to the claimants,
which for some compulsion, respondents were not in a
position to pay or tender them. But, nonetheless, the
17
exercise of power in the facts and circumstances 14
(1992) 1 SCC 684 15 (1992) 1 SCC 328 16 (1992) 4
SCC 243: JT (1992) 5 SC 136 17 AIR 1988 SC 2134 18
(1991) 4 SCC 584: AIR 1992 SC 248 of the cases by the
respondents has to be held to be against the spirit of the
provisions of the Act, tending towards arbitrariness. In
such a situation this Court in exercise of power under
Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226, could
have quashed the proceedings. But, taking into
consideration that in most of the cases, the Delhi
Administration and Delhi Development Authority have
taken possession of the lands and even developments
have been made, it shall not be proper exercise of
discretion on the part of this Court to quash the
proceedings because, in that event, it shall affect the
public interest. Moreover, third party interests created in
the meantime are also likely to be affected and such
third parties are not impleaded. The relief of quashing
the acquisition proceeding having become inappropriate
due to the subsequent events, the grant of a modified
relief, considered appropriate in the circumstances,
would be the proper course to adopt. The High Court or
this Court, can grant a modified relief taking into
consideration the injury caused to the claimants by the
inaction on the part of respondents and direct payment
of any additional amount, in exercise of power under
Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution.
15. Thus, Hon'ble The Supreme Court clearly held
that in any case there is an inordinate delay in conclusion
of the proceedings, it in exercise of powers under Article
32 as well as this court in exercise of power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India can quash the land
acquisition proceedings. However, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court did not quash the proceedings in case of RAM
CHAND supra on the ground that in most of the cases
Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority
had taken possession of the land and had developed the
land. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court moulded the
relief and directed payment of additional compensation.
16. The aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in RAM CHAND supra has no application to the facts of the
case as in the instant case admittedly, the possession of
the land has neither been taken nor any development on
18
the land have been made by the Authority. The lands are
admittedly in possession of the appellants.
17. It is also pertinent to mention that a division
bench of this court by an order dated 28.02.2022 passed
in W.P.No.26920/2010 in respect of the very same
scheme viz., HSR Layout quashed the land acquisition
proceeding on the ground that the award has not been
passed within reasonable time. Admittedly, against the
aforesaid order, the authority has not filed a appeal.
18. So far as the submission with regard to locus of the
appellants to question the land acquisition proceeding is
concerned, suffice it to say that the Learned Single Judge by
placing reliance on a division bench decision of this court in
'SMT.NAGUBAI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', ILR 2001 KAR
1169 has held that the appellants have locus to maintain the
proceedings. The Authority has not challenged the aforesaid
finding by filing a cross objection. Therefore, it is not necessary
for us to dwell any further on this aspect of the matter.
In view of the preceding analysis, the orders dated
preliminary as well as final notifications dated 15.12.1984 and
28.11.1986 in W.P.No.26972/2010, W.P.No.28549/2010
W.P.No.36667/2011, and W.P.No.59675/2014 are set aside. The
preliminary as well as final notifications dated 15.12.1984 and
28.11.1986 insofar as it pertains to the land of the appellants
and the petitioners are hereby quashed on the ground that the
authority has failed to conclude the land acquisition proceeding
within reasonable time inasmuch as no award was passed after
a period of 24 years from the date of publication of final
notification.
In the result, the appeals as well as writ petitions are
allowed."
Following the said judgment, a subsequent Division Bench in Writ
Appeal No.4567 of 2011 passes the following judgment:
".... .... ....
19
2. In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed
the validity of the order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26849/2010 by which the writ
petition preferred by the appellant has been allowed in part and
the appellant has been held entitled to payment of additional
compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. on the market value.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the appellant is the owner of the land bearing
Sy.No.52/3A measuring 2 acres and 11 guntas situated at
Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The
aforesaid land as well as other lands were required for the
purpose of formation of HSR Layout.
4. Thereupon, a preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984
was issued and thereafter, a final notification was issued on
28.11.1986. However, after a period of 24 years, an award was
passed on 12.05.2010.
5. The appellant challenged the validity of the
proceedings initiated for acquisition of his land by way of a writ
petition. Learned Single Judge inter alia held that there was a
delay in concluding the proceedings pertaining to land in
question and therefore, held that the appellant is entitled to
payment of additional compensation at the rate of 12% on the
market value. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal
has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
controversy involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the
judgment dated 01.02.2023 passed by this Court in
W.A.No.4583/2011 as well as other connected matters. On the
other hand, learned counsel for the Authority submitted that
even though there was a delay in passing the award, the
compensation of the award has been taken on 22.07.2010.
7. We have considered the submissions made on both
sides and have perused the records.
8. The right to hold the property is a constitutional right
which is guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India and no citizen can be deprived of his property without
following the due process of law. It is well settled legal
20
proposition that where a statute does not provide for time limit
for doing an Act, such an Act has to be done within a reasonable
time, and what would be reasonable time has to be decided in
the facts and circumstances of the Act. [See:'MEHER RUSI
DALAL V UNION OF INDIA', (2004) 7 SCC 362, 'P.K.
SREEKANTAN V P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR', (2006) 13 SCC
574 AND 'K.B NAGUR V UNION OF INDIA', (2012) 4 SCC
483].
9. Thus from the aforesaid well settled legal position, it is
evident that the proceedings under the Act have to be concluded
within a reasonable time.
10. In the instant case, preliminary notification was
issued on 15.12.1984 whereas the final notification was
issued on 28.11.1986. However, after a period of 24
years, the award was passed on 12.05.2010. Thus, there
has been an inordinate delay in passing the award. The
proceedings under the land acquisition Act has not been
concluded within a reasonable time. The award therefore
insofar as it pertains to land in question held by the
appellant cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. It is pertinent to note that the possession of the land
in question has been taken on 22.07.2010. However, no
mahazar has been placed on record to indicate that the
possession of the land in question has been taken. The Division
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 01.02.2023 has
considered the question of grant of relief to which the land
owners are entitled.
12. For the reasons assigned in the judgment dated
01.02.2023 passed in W.A.No.4583/2011, as well as for
the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 04.03.2011
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.26849/2010 is hereby set aside. The preliminary
notification dated 15.12.1984, final notification dated
28.11.1986 as well as award dated 12.05.2010 insofar as
it pertains to land held by the appellant is hereby
quashed.
In the result, appeal is allowed."
21
The BDA challenges these orders before the Apex Court. The Apex
Court rejects the SLP on 09-10-2023 in SLP (Civil) Diary No.21328
of 2023 by the following order:
"1. Delay condoned.
2. We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgments and orders passed by the High
Court. The special leave petitions are, accordingly,
dismissed.
3. However, question of law is kept open."
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The issue now would be, whether the petitioner would get the
benefit of those orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court
against which the Special Leave Petition also has been rejected.
11. As observed hereinabove, the petitioner was not issued
any notice prior to or after passing of the award as is necessary
under law. In the light of admitted facts, as noted hereinabove and
the judgments of the Division Bench quashing acquisition
notifications, the subject petition deserves to succeed with the
prayers to be granted.
22
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The preliminary notification dated 15-12-1984 and the
final notification dated 28-11-1986 both issued by the
2nd respondent/Bangalore Development Authority stand
quashed, insofar as the lands of the petitioner are
concerned, only if the BDA has not taken over physical
possession of the property, developed the property and
allotted it to third parties.
(ii) In the above event, the petitioner would be entitled to
compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. In the event, none of the
above have happened, the possession of the land with
the petitioner shall not be disturbed, as acquisition
proceedings have been obliterated on the reasons
23
rendered by the Division Bench concerning adjacent
lands.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ