B.S Patil, J.:— Petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking a declaration that acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 44/7 measuring 7 guntas of Bommanahalli village, Bengaluru North Taluk, acquired for the benefit of Bengaluru Development Aucbority (for short, ‘BDA’) have stood lapsed and have been abandoned, and therefore, they are non-est. They have also sought for a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘2013 Act’), as compensation amount was not deposited nor physical possession of the land was taken.

2. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the petitioners submits that declaration sought on the strength of the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act may not strictly arise for consideration in this case, and therefore, prayer made in that regard is not pressed. Hence, it is unnecessary to consider the effect of the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, in respect of the present acquisition.

3. However, as regards the main relief seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings have been abandoned and have stood lapsed and are required to be declared as such, the relevant facts that emerge from the pleadings are required to be noted.

4. Petitioners 2 to 6 were the original owners of property bearing Sy. No. 44/7 measuring 7 guntas situated at Bommanahalli village. Petition schedule property along with several others was notified for acquisition for the purpose of formation of Hosur Sarjapur Road Layout for the benefit of BDA by issuing preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984 This was followed by final notification dated 28.11.1986 It is an admitted fact that BDA has not passed any award so far, nor has it paid any compensation in respect of the land in question. The land has continued to be in possession of the owners. When BDA did not proceed with the acquisition by passing the award and by paying compensation or taking over possession, the land owners having kept quiet for a period of 10 years have dealt with the land by executing sale deed dated 06.05.1996 in favour of petitioner No. 1. After purchase of the property, petitioner No. 1 has continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. He has got his name entered in the revenue records and has been dealing with the property.

5. It is asserted by the petitioner that he has constructed a residential house and has been residing in the same by paying tax regularly to the authorities. Petitioners have produced photographs to show the nature of development made in the property. These photographs produced at Annexures-F, F1, F2 & F3 disclose that petitioner has put up residential building over the property and has developed the same considerably. It is also necessary to notice that no award has been passed and possession of the Land has not been taken. To substantiate this aspect, petitioners have placed reliance on the communication dated 30.01.2014 issued by the State Government addressed to the Commissioner, BDA, asking for reason why no award was passed in respect of Sy. No. 44/7 measuring 7 guntas. This letter is produced at Annexure-G. In reply, BDA has written to the State Government stating that possession of the land was not taken and no notification as required under Section 16(2) was issued. This letter dated 28.01.2013 of the Deputy Commissioner for Land Acquisition is produced at Annexure-H. In fact, this fact regarding BDA having not passed any award and having not taken possession of the property, is not disputed and cannot be disputed in view of the communications at Annexures-G & H.

6. Petitioners have also pointed out that in respect of the adjoining portion of the same survey number, its owner had approached this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings in W.P No. 4279/2007. The said writ petition was allowed on 19.09.2013 because the BDA itself had admitted before this Court that no award had been passed and possession of the land had not been taken. In those circumstances, this Court declared that the acquisition had stood lapsed as no award had been passed within a reasonable period. It is, therefore, contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners That in the instant case also, despite lapse of 30 years, BDA has not passed any award and has not proceeded with the acquisition, therefore, the acquisition has to be treated as abandoned and lapsed.

7. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments in the case of RAM CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA - (1994) 1 SCC 44; and SMT. ANDALAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2002 (4) KCCR 2361, in support of his contention that BDA having not passed the award within a reasonable period, the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed and shall be treated as having been abandoned. He has also placed reliance on the unreported judgment of this Court in W.P No. 6354-6356/2011 disposed of on 01.12.2011 pertaining to the very same layout, wherein the subsequent purchasers who had purchased after long lapse of time had approached this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings and succeeded in their challenge.

8. Reliance is also placed on another Division Bench judgment in the case of H.N SHIVANNA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, BANGALORE - 2013 (4) KCCR 2793; and SMT. NAGU BAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2001 KAR 1169. He has pointed out by referring to the above judgments that when a power is conferred on any authority to do a certain thing, the said power has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period. He also points out with reference to the aforementioned judgments, particularly from the judgment in Smt. Nagu Bai's case that though the subsequent purchasers cannot normally maintain challenge to the acquisition proceedings, but in a matter where declaration is sought regarding lapse of acquisition due to expiry of period prescribed or due to lapse of reasonable period within which award was required to be passed, there would be no bar for the subsequent purchaser to maintain the writ petition seeking declaration in that connection. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in the case of SANTOSHKUMAR SHIVGONDA PATIL v. BALASAHEB TUKARAM SHEVALE - (2009) 9 SCC 352; SHIVAPPA VEERAPPA MASUR v. MALLIKARJUNA MURUGARAJENDRA SWAMIJI - 1978 (1) KAR. LJ 479; and S.B GURBAKSH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA - (1976) 2 SCC 181 : AIR 1976 SC 1115, particularly, to emphasize the position in law that even if no time is prescribed in law for exercising the statutory duty cast on the authority, the same has to be exercised within a reasonable period.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that though draft award had been passed, the same was not got approved by the competent authority, and therefore, the award as contemplated under the provisions of the BDA Act did not come into existence and possession of the land could not be taken. She further points out that as petitioner No. 1 is the subsequent purchaser of the land, the writ petition at his instance cannot be maintained. In this regard, she has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. SUBHASH SINDHI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, JAIPUR - (2013) 5 SCC 427.

10. Having carefully considered the respective contentions, the undisputed facts that emerge are, that though final notification was issued as back as in the year 1986 (28.11.1986), BDA has not chosen to pass any award even as on today. Though 30 years have elapsed, possession of the land remained with the original owners and subsequently with the purchaser. The owners and purchaser from them have altered their position by developing the land. They have put up construction of residential houses over the land.

11. The land in question is a small piece of 7 guntas of land situated at Bommanahalli village in Bengaluru South Taluk. Therefore, question of BDA now proceeding with the acquisition by passing an award taking over possession and making any layout to distribute the sites at this stage, does not arise. After a lapse of 30 years, BDA cannot proceed with the acquisition by passing an award as it would result in erbitrary exercise of power by the BDA, in as much as, the market value to be determined and compensation payable would be reckoned as it existed on the date of publication of the preliminary notification during the year 1984. Payment of compensation on that basis to the land owners would be illusory.

12. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel by referring to various judgments of the Apex Court and also of this Court, the authority vested with power to discharge any statutory function, has to act in a reasonable manner and exercise of power in a reasonable manner includes exercising the same within a reasonable period. BDA is enjoined with the duty to pass award determining the market value and compensation payable to the person who has lost the land due to acquisition. The land owner has got statutory right which has been constitutionally recognized as per Article 300A to get compensation for the acquired land. He cannot be deprived of his right to get just and fair compensation within a reasonable period because of the negligence or omission on the part of the beneficiary of the acquisition or the acquiring body.

13. So far as owner of the land is concerned, he is not concerned about the inaction of any of the officers, of the BDA or lack of communication between the BDA and the State Government with regard to passing of the award and the steps to be taken in that regard. His rights have to be examined from the stand point of his entitlement in law and the corresponding duty cast on the authorities to pass the award. Viewed from this angle, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that BDA has acted in a reasonable manner in not passing the award for the last three decades.

14. Indeed, it is necessary to notice here that this is not a simple case where challenge is made to the acquisition by the subsequent purchaser and therefore, it has to be held that writ petition cannot be maintained. The owners of the land have waited for 10 years after the final notification was issued. When no award was passed for a period of 10 years, he has dealt with this property and has sold the same in favour of petitioner No. 1. The owners cannot be expected to stay away from the property or keep their hands out of the property for an indefinite period anticipating the BDA to pass the award some day. If BDA has not exercised its power within a reasonable period, a right accrues to the land owner to deal with his property. That is because, acquisition proceedings after such lapse of time stood abandoned. In such a situation, the purchaser who has purchased the property after a decade from the date of the preliminary and final notification, cannot be shut out from seeking a declaration that the acquisition stood lapsed as the same was abandoned by the acquiring authority and the beneficiary. This position in law is explained by the Division Bench in paragraph 15 of the judgment in Nagu Bai's case referred to supra. Hence, I am of the view that none of the contentions urged by the Counsel for the BDA are tenable in law, to sustain the notifications and the acquisition.

15. The acquisition having not been completed, no award having been passed nor possession of the land having been taken for the last three decades, the entire acquisition proceedings stand lapsed as having been abandoned by the BDA and the State Government.

16. In the light of the above, the principle that transferee of land after the publication of preliminary notification cannot maintain a writ petition challenging the acquisition, cannot be made applicable to a case where the acquisition itself has been abandoned and has stood lapsed due to efflux of time on account of the omission and inaction on the part of the acquiring authority, particularly because. it is because of the lapse of time and the abandonment of acquisition, right accrues to the original owner to deal with his property including by way of sale and the purchaser will acquire right to protect his interest. Hence, the judgment in the case of RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. SUBHASH SINDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, JAIPUR - (2013) 5 SCC 427, will have no application to the facts of the present case.

17. Writ petitions are, therefore, allowed. It is hereby declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 44/7 measuring 7 guntas of Bommanahalli village, Bengaluru North Taluk, have stood lapsed and have been abandoned.