Smt. Saroja vs The State, The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land bearing Survey No. 1/3 of Vajarahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, having inherited the same through her father, who is said to have died on 7.12.2009 and who, in turn, had acquired the same under a partition deed. The said land was proposed for acquisition for the purpose of formation of the J.P. Nagar 9th Phase under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''BDA Act'', for brevity). A notification u/s 17 of the BDA Act was issued on 19.1.1989, which was followed by final notification dated 22.7.1991.

It is the case of the petitioner however, that subsequent to the issuance of such notifications, there has been no further action on the part of the respondents insofar as the petitioner''s land is concerned and possession continues to be with the petitioner. Even during the lifetime of her husband, the proceedings having been initiated, there were several representations made by him seeking that the land be dropped from the acquisition proceedings. In reply, it was stated that since the land was subject matter of the final notification, the question of dropping the same from acquisition would not arise. However, it is further stated that there was a Committee constituted by the Government of Karnataka to address whether there was scope for dropping certain lands from acquisition and the petitioner''s land was in the list of properties, which were subject matter of consideration by the said Committee and there was a recommendation to withdraw from acquisition in respect of the petitioner''s land was concerned. The resolution passed by the Committee is produced as annexure to the petition. It is therefore evident, according to the petitioner, that there was no intention to proceed further with the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner''s property was concerned and it is for that reason that no award was passed nor was possession taken in respect of the petitioner''s land in question though the scheme insofar as the formation of the J.P. Nagar 9th Phase was concerned may have been implemented in respect of other items of land which were subject matter of acquisition. And hence, in the light of the respondents not having indicated whether the land of the petitioner is any longer subject matter of acquisition proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present petition, to primarily contend that on account of inaction for more than 21 years from the date of final notification, the scheme not having been implemented insofar as the petitioner''s property is concerned, the same would be redundant and would lapse in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act.

The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would state that it is admitted that no award has been passed and that possession has not been taken in respect of the land in question. However, the contention that the Scheme has lapsed by virtue of no further proceedings having been taken in respect of the petitioner''s land, may not be the correct position of law, for Section 27 of the BDA Act contemplates that the Scheme not having been implemented substantially, would result in the Scheme becoming redundant and not in respect of any portion of land, as sought to be contended. Further, the question whether an award was passed within a period of two years, is not relevant, insofar as Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not be applicable to acquisition under the BDA Act, as enunciated by the apex court in the case of Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, and therefore, the Counsel would submit that in the absence of any limitation period for passing an award, the argument canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

By way of reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that this court, in a reported decision in Gautam Kamat Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Sri L.R. Kamat and Smt. Bhagavathi L. Kamat Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority and State of Karnataka, , has already held that the Scheme insofar as J.P. Nagar 9th Phase is concerned, the same not having been implemented substantially, has lapsed and has accordingly allowed the petition in similar circumstances and therefore, would submit that the said decision would clinch the issue and hence seeks that the petition be allowed. Given the above circumstances, without entering upon the question whether the entire Scheme has lapsed, the fact remains that no award has been passed nor possession has been taken of the land in question and even from the reported decision, it is seen that it is restricted to the extent of the petitioners'' lands therein. In the admitted facts and circumstances, though the final notification was of the year 1991, no award having been passed and possession of the land admittedly, not having been taken even as on date, notwithstanding that there was no impediment for the same by way of interim orders or other injunctory restrictions, the Scheme not having been implemented insofar as the petitioner''s land is concerned, the same cannot be implemented having regard to Section 27 of the Act at least insofar as the petitioner''s land is concerned.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated in respect of the petitioner''s land are hereby quashed.