@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Anand Byrareddy, J.@mdash1. Heard Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority. The petitioner is said to be the owner of the land bearing No. 41/3 measuring 14 guntas of Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District. The said land was the subject-matter of acquisition under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 by a preliminary notification dated 15-12-1984 and the final notification dated 28-11-1996. It transpires that the petitioner had acquired the land under a registered partition deed dated 25-1-1971. In fact, the property in question had been allotted to his share as well as his brother Ramaswamy Reddy. The petitioner''s brother Ramaswamy Reddy had died issueless and the petitioner was his sole successor. The respondents had thereafter issued the notifications for acquisition for the purpose of formation of layout called "Between Hosur Road and Sarjapur Road Layout (HSR Layout)" and the petitioner''s land was shown in the final notification at Sl. Nos. 216 and 214 respectively. Inspite of the land having been acquired, the respondents have not developed the said extent and the petitioner had made a representation seeking issuance of No Objection Certificate to develop the property as the scheme had been abandoned insofar as the petitioner''s land was concerned. He had also sought clarification as to whether possession had been taken by the BDA pursuant to the final notification. An endorsement was issued to the effect that no award had been passed and possession was not taken in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in respect of the petitioner''s land, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri C.R. Gopalaswamy, the learned Counsel for the BDA has filed statement of objections to contend that the assertion of the petitioner that there is no need of the petitioner''s land by the BDA is incorrect. Since there were many pending litigations in respect of the adjacent lands and the same not having been included in the development that had taken place in the rest of the land cannot be a ground to contend that the BDA has lost right over the land in question. Writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 4279 of 2007 (LA-BDA) (B.M. Ramachandra Reddy alias Chandra Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Others , 2014 (1) Kar. L.J. 436), in respect of another portion of Survey No. 41/3 and other survey numbers. When that petition was pending, the authorities had conducted a survey and prepared the sketch also in respect of the entire extent of land in Survey No. 41/3 which also includes disputed property. Further, an extent of 4 1/2 guntas of land in question was already utilised for formation of road. Therefore, the petitioner''s assertion that the land is not required as part of the layout that is developed is an incorrect assertion and the delay in utilising the land is only on account of pending litigation and therefore, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
3. However, it is found that in respect of portion of the very land bearing Survey No. 41/3 there were petitions filed before this Court in W.P. Nos. 4279 of 2007 and 3033 of 1987 (LA-BDA) which were disposed of on 19-9-2013 wherein since there was no award passed in respect of the lands which were the subject-matter of those proceedings and a portion of land having been utilised for formation of a road without taking lawful possession of the lands in question and even according to BDA, development of the land not having been undertaken in view of pendency of the litigations and since there were no satisfactory explanation from the BDA as regards the inordinate delay of more than 20 years in making the award in respect of the land in question that was already utilised without taking lawful possession thereof and insofar as remaining extent of land, no further development having taken place, this Court had held that the acquisition proceedings would lapse insofar as those extents of land are concerned and the BDA had conceded that the lands in question could be excluded from the acquisition. This would also follow for the present case on hand when admittedly no further developments have taken place. Notwithstanding the assertion that there were legal proceedings pending which are not demonstrated by producing appropriate material, in the face of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions in respect of the other portion of land in question, the petitions are allowed. The BDA shall determine the compensation payable in respect of 4 1/2 guntas of land which has been utilised for the purpose of formation of road and the remaining extent of land claimed by the petitioner shall stand excluded as the acquisition has lapsed by sheer efflux of time.
