IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.5455 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.19761 OF 2021)

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

Versus

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.5456 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.10565 OF 2023)

O R D E R

Leave granted. 1.

The land measuring 102 acres, comprising Survey No.7 at $\mathbf{2}$ Manavartha Kavala, Bangalore South, was proposed to be acquired the Bangalore Development Act, 1976, vide preliminary under Notification dated 07.11.2002. However, at the time of issuance of the final Notification on 09.09.2003, the acquisition was confined quntas only. The rest of the land was to 49 acres and 4 exempted/released from acquisition. Thereafter, an Award was passed on 12.12.2003. It appears that physical possession of the land was not taken, and the scheme for which it was acquired was also not given effect at the site. Consequently, the respondents challenged the preliminary and final Notifications and sought a declaration the entire scheme for which the acquisition was sought to be made had lapsed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions on 11.04.2016 and quashed the preliminary and

... APPELLANTS

final Notifications for more than one reasons.

3. The Bangalore Development Authority (for short, `BDA'), as it appears from the contention raised on behalf of the respondents, initially decided not to challenge the decision of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the Authority reluctantly filed an intra-court appeal with a delay of 1104 days. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide the impugned judgment, has dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay though some observations regarding failure of the appellantauthority in taking possession of the land or non-implementation of the scheme etc. have also been made. It seems that after the decision of the learned Single Judge and till the intra-court appeal was filed, the original owners have altered their position and third-party rights were created. That being the state of affairs, we do not find it a fit case to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.

4. The Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

5. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

.........................J. (SURYA KANT)

..............…….........J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

NEW DELHI; APRIL 23, 2024. 2

ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).19761/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-02-2020 in WA No.1759/2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)

IA No.64195/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No.205800/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES WITH SLP(C) No.10565/2023 (IV-A)

Date : 23-04-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

For Petitioner(s)	Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv.<br>Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv.<br>Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR<br>Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv.<br>Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, Adv.<br>Mr. Subham Bahuguna, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR
	Mr. Pallav Sisodia, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv.<br>Ms. Padma Priya, Adv.<br>Mr. Naman Jain, Adv.<br>Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR
	Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR<br>Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.<br>Mr. M. Bangaraswamy, Adv.<br>Mr. Premnath Mishra, Adv.<br>Mr. Dhanesh Ieshdhan, Adv.
	UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The Civil Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.

As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)