Section 27 BDA Act | Scheme Does Not Lapse Once Substantial Implementation Commences; Belated Challenges to Urban Planning Rejected: Karnataka High Court

“The public interest in urban expansion outweighs the individual interests... Given that the acquisition has already resulted in significant urban development, any interference at this stage would cause irreparable harm to public planning and infrastructure development.”— In a seminal ruling, the Karnataka High Court, comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, has dismissed a batch of Writ Appeals challenging the land acquisition for the "Banashankari VI Stage" layout, firmly establishing that a development scheme cannot be deemed to have lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) Act once substantial steps towards implementation have been taken.

The Controversy: Banashankari VI Stage Acquisition

The appeals, filed by the legal representatives of original landowners (Smt. Ammayamma and Sri V. Srinivasa Murthy), sought to overturn the judgment of a Single Judge who had upheld the acquisition proceedings initiated in 2002-2003. The primary contention raised by the appellants was that the BDA failed to execute the scheme within the statutory period of five years from the date of the Final Notification (09.09.2003). Consequently, they argued that the scheme had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, 1976, and that their possession should not be disturbed.

The appellants also alleged discrimination, pointing out that while the BDA had denotified nearly 657 acres of land upon payment of betterment charges, the petitioners were not extended the same benefit. Furthermore, they challenged the validity of the possession taken by the BDA, describing the drawing of the mahazar as "nebulous."

“The acquisition process was lawful, fair and necessary for urban planning... Courts should not interfere once substantial development has taken place.”

Substantial Implementation Negates Lapse

Rejection the plea of lapsing, the Division Bench conducted a factual audit of the development. The Court noted that while the Preliminary Notification covered 1,532 acres, the Final Notification was restricted to 750 acres. Crucially, the BDA had successfully taken possession of 580 acres and 18 guntas, carved out 5,991 sites, and allotted 4,983 sites to the public.

The Bench held that these statistics evidenced "substantial implementation" of the scheme. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ratio in Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. BDA, the Court ruled that Section 27 cannot be invoked to declare a scheme lapsed when the authority has already undertaken significant development work, including land leveling and drainage formation.

Possession and Procedure: The "Seamless Flow"

The Court dismantled the appellants' argument regarding the irregularity of taking possession. The Bench observed a "seamless flow of events": the award was passed in 2003, compensation was deposited in the Civil Court in 2005, and possession was formally taken via mahazar and notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in 2007.

The Court found that the subsequent mutation of revenue records in favor of the BDA in 2013 further corroborated the lawful transfer of the land. The Bench affirmed the Single Judge's finding that the mode and method of taking possession suffered from no illegality.

“The mode and method of BDA taking possession of the petitioners' lands do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality.”

Delay and Laches: The Fatal Flaw

A significant factor weighing against the appellants was the inordinate delay in approaching the writ court. The cause of action regarding the alleged lapse of the scheme arose in 2008 (five years after the 2003 Final Notification). However, the writ petition was filed only in 2013.

The Court rejected the appellants' attempt to create a fresh cause of action based on the entry of BDA officials onto the land in January 2013. Citing the principle that delay defeats equity, the Bench held that the petition was barred by delay and laches, noting that no satisfactory explanation was offered for the five-year hiatus.

Binding Precedent and Public Interest

The Division Bench placed heavy reliance on a Coordinate Bench judgment dated 03.04.2025 (W.A. No. 1026/2006), which had upheld the acquisition for the same layout. The Court emphasized the need for consistency in judicial decisions, noting that the Coordinate Bench had specifically negatived the plea of lapse under Section 27.

Concluding the verdict, the Court reiterated that individual property rights must yield to the larger public purpose of planned urban development. With the layout already formed and third-party rights created through site allotments, the Court held that interference at this stage was legally impermissible.

Date of Decision: 09/01/2026