The Sites Were Formed, Auctioned And Allotted. The Scheme Did Not Lapse.
A housing society won a declaration in 2016 that the Bangalore Development Authority's acquisition of its land had lapsed. A Division Bench has reversed it, finding the record told a different story.
The Court held that the record itself demonstrates actual implementation of the scheme — sites formed, possession certificates issued, auctions held, allotments made. Compensation had been deposited in the Civil Court, and the society had sought enhancement. Having lost earlier challenges, it could not reopen proceedings decades later; stale claims cannot be revived. The Single Judge's order was set aside.
- The record beat the assertion. The society said it still held the land; the auction and allotment papers said otherwise.
- Compensation deposited is compensation paid for these purposes — the society had even sought more.
- Earlier rounds count. The society had challenged the acquisition in 1987 and lost.
- Stale claims stay closed, following the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.
- Court
- High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- Bench
- Justice D K SINGH, Justice H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
- Citation
- W.A. No. 3324 of 2016
- Case
- W.A. No. 3324 of 2016
- Decided
- 7 September 2026
- Outcome
- Writ appeal allowed; Single Judge's declaration of lapse set aside
The land and the layout
The dispute concerns 32 guntas in Nagashettihalli village, Bangalore North taluk, which a housing co-operative society said it bought in 1975. It formed part of land notified by the BDA in 1977 and 1978 for a layout, with an award passed in 1983.
Landowners' challenges on the ground that the scheme had lapsed were dismissed in 1986. The society's own writ petition was dismissed in 1996 for delay. The BDA issued auction notifications for sites formed in the survey number in 1991 and 1996, and suits by others were dismissed because possession had been taken.
In 2016 the society filed a fresh writ petition saying it had never been paid, still had possession, and that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24 of the 2013 Act and Section 27 of the BDA Act. A Single Judge agreed and quashed the acquisition as to its land.
What the record showed
The formation of sites in the survey number, the issue of possession certificates, auction notifications and the allotment of sites clearly demonstrated substantial implementation of the scheme, so the claim of lapse under Section 27 was bereft of merit.
The Single Judge had proceeded as if the BDA had neither paid compensation nor taken possession. But compensation had been deposited with the Civil Court, and the society had itself filed a reference case in 1985 seeking enhancement. The whole premise of the order was against the record.
Following the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, stale or time-barred claims cannot be invoked to reopen concluded proceedings. Here the petition came in 2016, decades after the 1983 award, after the land had been developed and dealt with.
The result
The Bench held the Single Judge had erred in declaring the acquisition lapsed and had passed the order without appreciating the entire material on record.
The order of April 2016 was set aside and the BDA's appeal allowed. The appeal had been decided once before, in 2021, and was restored for fresh hearing in 2024 after the society went to the Supreme Court and then sought review.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can an acquisition from the 1970s still be declared lapsed?
Not where the record shows the scheme was implemented and compensation deposited; stale claims cannot reopen it.
Does depositing compensation in court count as payment?
Here the deposit, and the society's own claim for enhancement, defeated the argument that it was never paid.
Before claiming an old acquisition has lapsed
- Search for auction notices, allotments and possession certificates covering your survey number; they will be used against you.
- Check whether compensation was deposited in court, and whether you or a predecessor sought enhancement.
- List every earlier challenge to the same acquisition and its outcome.
- Expect delay to be decisive after Indore Development Authority.
Source. High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, W.A. No. 3324 of 2016, decided 7 September 2026 by Justice D K SINGH, Justice H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in