AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Although the appeals are barred by limitation, by consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeals are taken up for preliminary hearing.
These are appeals against the judgment and order dated April 21, 2016, passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge holding that the scheme for formation of the layout has been abandoned. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners stood, therefore, quashed.
Initially, it was proposed to acquire 225 acres of land. In the final notification, 160 acres were notified, but the award was passed in respect of 98 acres of land.
A notification was issued under sub-Section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, releasing 82 acres of land.
Therefore, roughly 20 acres of land are left for the purpose of formation of layout. The lands too are standing in isolated pieces and, therefore, layout cannot be formed.
Therefore, the Hon''ble Single Judge was right in holding that the scheme to form the layout stood frustrated.
Mr.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the appeals, relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in ''OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED versus BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS'' reported in (2011)3 SUPREME COURT CASES 139, in order to highlight that it has been held that when a scheme stood lapsed, the acquisition might not lapse.
The Supreme Court of India in OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED (supra), observed that the situation depends on the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the entire attempt to form the layout stood frustrated.
We do not find any merit in the appeals.
The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are, also, dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.