Karnataka High Court upholds BDA land acquisition at Gubbalala village

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has upheld the acquisition of certain lands at Gubbalala village in Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, for the formation of "Further Extension of Banashankari VI Stage by linking existing VI Stage Layout through Kanakapura-Bangalore Main Road".

A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and TM Nadaf passed the order allowing the writ appeal filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) observing that the scheme has been substantially implemented and sites allotted.

The landowners had filed the petitions before the single bench challenging the November 7, 2002, preliminary notification and September 9, 2003, final notification under the Bangalore Development Authority Act. The petitioners had alternatively sought directions to compensate them as per 40-60 scheme in the event of acquisition was completed in all respects. The single judge bench had quashed the preliminary and final notifications holding that the possession of the lands of the petitioners was not taken in accordance with law.

Challenging this order, the BDA contended that the land acquisition proceedings were concluded after the issuance of the preliminary and final notifications for formation of the layout and that the possession of the lands was taken in January 2004. It was further submitted that sites had been formed and allotted to the allottees.

The division bench noted that as many as 53 sites have been allotted in respect of the lands of the petitioners. “The conveyance deeds in favour of the allottees have been registered by the BDA. The Google Maps would also show that the allottees have put up construction of houses and the roads have been formed. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the scheme has been substantially implemented and there is no question of applicability of either the provisions of Section 27 of the BDA Act or the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act. The award amount has been deposited in the Treasury and that is not in dispute,” the division bench said, while setting aside the order of the single bench.