@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Anand Byrareddy, J.@mdash1. These petitions are disposed of by this common order at the stage of preliminary hearing given the facts and circumstances.
2. The facts are, the petitioner in W.P.53210/2014 and W.P.53299/2014 claims that one P.M. Abbaiah Naidu was the absolute owner of land comprised in Sy. No. 32/5 of Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 1 acre 35 guntas, described in the schedule to the petition. The said land is said to have been purchased by the petitioner under the sale deed dated 5.7.1960. It is claimed that the said Abbaiah Naidu was also the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 32/6 of the same village measuring 1 acre 4 guntas, which is also described in the schedule to the petition and it is said to have been purchased by the said Abbaiah Naidu under the sale deed dated 23.7.1966. The petitioner contends that the said Abbaiah Naidu sold the property in his favour under the sale deed dated 23.12.1999. In the meanwhile, the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ''the BDA'', for brevity) is said to have notified the land for acquisition under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'', for brevity), dated 17.11.1988 proposing to acquire 1,333 acres 34 guntas of land situated in nine different villages, including Doddakallasandra, for the purpose of formation of a residential layout called as ''Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar 9th Stage''. The declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act came to be issued on 22.7.1991 reducing the notified land to 1111 acres 36 3/4 guntas. The schedule properties were notified in the name of the original owner, Abbaiah Naidu, who was shown as the khatedar. An award notice is said to have been issued in respect of the schedule properties. However, it is the claim of the petitioner that no compensation was paid either to Abbaiah Naidu or to the petitioner, till date. The first respondent claims to have taken possession of the schedule properties as on 30.5.1998 and a mahazar dated 30.5.1998 was drawn and a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is said to have been issued. Though the notification is issued pursuant to the alleged mahazar, according to the petitioner, physical possession of the schedule properties were not taken by the respondents and that the petitioner has continued in possession of the properties. The petitioner however claims that the declaration issued under Section 19(1) of the Act was said to have been challenged by the other land owners in W.P.4046/1993 and connected cases. The final notification having been quashed by an order dated 27.9.1996, on the ground that the notification had been issued without obtaining sanction of the scheme by the State Government, which was mandatory. However, this Court granted liberty to the BDA to proceed with the acquisition, in accordance with law, within a period of one year. Aggrieved by the said order of the single Judge, writ appeals were preferred. The State Government and the BDA have accepted the order of the single Judge and did not prefer any writ appeal. The Division Bench of this Court, while considering the applicability of Section 6 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the acquisition proceedings, held that the same was not applicable and therefore, allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order of passed by the single Judge. Some of the writ petitioners preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court and by an order dated 27.2.2002, Civil Appeals were allowed, observing that the State Government and the BDA had not filed any appeal against the order of the single Judge and have accepted the said judgment. In effect, the order of the single Judge passed by this Court stood restored and liberty was reserved to the BDA to proceed with the acquisition proceedings.
3. It is pointed out that this Court had an occasion to consider the acquisition proceedings pertaining to Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar 9th Stage in the case of Gautam Kamath Hotels Private Limited vs. Bangalore Development Authority (2013 (1) KLJ 463), wherein it was held that there was no substantial implementation of the scheme and declared that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed, insofar as the lands pertaining to the petitioners therein are concerned. The lands involved in the said decision are Sy. No. 31/1B of Doddakallasandra Village, which are situated in close proximity to the schedule property. Another single Judge of this Court also declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands of the petitioners before him having lapsed, which were also in close proximity to the lands of the petitioners. A further instance is also mentioned in the body of the writ petition. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this Court seeking identical reliefs as has been granted in favour of other land owners.
4. The petitioner in the connected writ petition, W.P.53209/2014 claims that one N. Beerappa and Smt. Beeramma had sold the property bearing Sy. No. 33/1 of Doddakallasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 3 acres 14 guntas, described in the schedule to the petition, under the sale deed dated 1.5.1986. It is also claimed that the schedule property is identically situated as that of the land in the connected petitions and the same sequence of events are pleaded to contend that possession has remained with the petitioner and that the Layout not having been formed except to an extent of 12 acres out of total extent of 1111 acres 36 3/4 guntas and the scheme having miserably failed and the acquisition proceedings same having lapsed, insofar as the petitioner''s land is concerned, the petitioner is entitled for a similar relief as has been granted by this Court in other similar cases.
5. The BDA entered appearance and filed statement of objections to deny the averments made in the petitions and to claim that it would be incorrect on the part of the petitioners to contend that they have continued to be in possession of the schedule properties. The possession having been taken and the compensation amount having been deposited before the Civil Court, the factum of possession is reflected in the notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Act and the mahazar drawn up while taking physical possession of the schedule properties would clinch the issue and it would not be open for the petitioners to claim that they continue to be in possession of the schedule properties. It has not been denied that there has been implementation of the scheme to some extent and it is by virtue of large number of petitions having been filed, where there were interim orders of stay, prohibiting the BDA from proceeding with implementation of the scheme, there has been inordinate delay in the implementation of the scheme, which cannot be attributable to any want of diligence on the part of the BDA and further, the present petitions are barred by delay and latches and cannot be entertained at a remote point of time. The petitioners were not the notified khatedars and have no jurisdiction to challenge the acquisition proceedings and to seek a declaration in respect of acquisition proceedings. They are at best be entitled to compensation and on the face of the material documents to indicate physical possession having been taken, in accordance with law, there is no substance in these petitions and the same have to be rejected.
6. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the reliance sought to be placed on the notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Act and the said mahazar said to have been drawn up cannot be sustained as the mahazar is a nebulous document and would not answer to the description of a mahazar of having taken possession. The notification is issued routinely under Section 16(2) of the Act, even though no such physical possession was taken and therefore, it would not enable the BDA to claim that actual physical possession was taken. The mahazar is a printed document, in which many blanks have not even filled up and the boundaries of the property is not shown, nor the names of witnesses is shown and the persons who have signed the mahazar are unidentifiable as their names and addresses are not shown and therefore, in many number of cases before this Court, it has been repeatedly held that such nebulous documents cannot be relied on to prove the factum of possession having been taken and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon by the BDA to contend that possession had been taken. If possession had been taken, it was incumbent on the BDA to demonstrate that the scheme has been substantially implemented. It is not the case of the BDA that there was an order of stay in respect of the present petition schedule lands. There is no indication of any development over the petition schedule lands. Admittedly, the development claimed by the BDA is only in respect of 12 acres of land out of total extent of 1111 acres 36 3/4 guntas. Therefore, there is no indication that there has been substantial implementation of the scheme. In terms of Section 27 of the Act, if the scheme is not implemented within a period of five years, the scheme would lapse and therefore, the learned counsel would submit that in view of several petitions having been allowed by this Court, which may have been challenged in appeals before the Division Bench, there is no substance in the case of the BDA and therefore, the petitions be allowed.
7. In the above said circumstances, since this Court has already taken a view that the scheme has lapsed, it can be said that the BDA has failed to implement the scheme and no Layout has been formed. The substantial implementation which would require is development of at least 50% of the lands acquired by the BDA over the years. The final notification is of the year 1991. Even as on date, if the BDA is not able to develop major portion of the lands, there is no doubt that the scheme has lapsed and the BDA has failed to implement the scheme. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and the scheme is declared to have lapsed insofar as the lands, which are the subject matter of these two petitions are concerned.
