( 1 ) THESE petitions are disposed of by a common order since certain common questions arise for consideration in all these petitions. ( 2 ). AS. I and II are allowed. ( 3 ) THE petitioners are the owners of certain portions of the lands in Survey Nos. 81/1, 82/2 and 84/3 of Kacharakanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The preliminary notification was made in the year 1977 and the final notification was made in the year 1980. The lands were sought to be acquired for the Bangalore Development Authority (in short the BDA) for the purpose of developing a layout known as 'banaswadi Road Hennur Road Layout'. A large extent of land approximately 1,200 acres had been acquired under the aforesaid notifications and a number of petitions by the owners of the lands who were aggrieved by the said preliminary and the final notifications had come before this Court and their Writ Petitions were dismissed by a series of Judgments to which a brief reference has to be made. It is on record that after the final declaration was made under Section 19 (1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (in short the BDA Act), notices under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the la Act) were Issued on 2-7-1981 to the petitioners and the same were served on the petitioners. There was also a paper publication of these notices in two issues of 'deccan Herald' dated 9-6-1981 and 18-6-1981, inviting claim applications from the persons aggrieved by the final declaration. The first petitioner had claimed compensation in respect of Survey No. 81/1 at the rate of Rs. 1. 2 lakhs per acre on 14-7-1981 and he had filed his application for reference in LAC 372/80-81 under Section 18 of the LA Act to the Civil Court before the Additional Land acquisition Officer BDA on 12-3-1984. This petitioner has also claimed compensation for the factory building at Rs. 5 lakhs, for well with pump house at Rs. 50,000/- and standing trees at rs. 500/- each on 14-7-1981. Award was made on 4-6-1984 and, according to the BDA, possession was taken on 18-6-1984 and the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the LA Act on 10-1-1986. Petitioner No. 2 likewise has filed application claiming compensation at Rs. 25/- per Sq. ft. on 14-7-1981. 50,000/- and standing trees at rs. 500/- each on 14-7-1981. Award was made on 4-6-1984 and, according to the BDA, possession was taken on 18-6-1984 and the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the LA Act on 10-1-1986. Petitioner No. 2 likewise has filed application claiming compensation at Rs. 25/- per Sq. ft. on 14-7-1981. Petitioner No. 4 has claimed on 14-7-1981 compensation at Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. and at Rs. 500/- per tree. Petitioner No. 5 has claimed compensation at Rs. 25/-per sq. ft. and at Rs. 500/- per tree on 14-7-1981. Petitioner No. 6 has filed his claim petition similarly on 14-7-1981 claiming compensation at Rs. 28/- per sq. ft. and rs. 30,000/- for the well and pump house and at Rs. 400/- per grape tree. Petitioner No. 7 has filed his claim petition on 14-7-1981 claiming compensation at Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. and at Rs. 400/- per grape tree. Petitioner No. 8 has similarly filed claim petition on 14-7-1981 claiming compensation at Rs. 18/- per sq. ft. and at Rs. 400/- per grape tree. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that awards were passed on all these claim petitions on 6-4-1984 and award notices dated 8-6-1984 were issued under Section 12 (2) of the LA Act and the same were served on Petitioner No. 3 on 15-6-1984 and also on other petitioners. These petitions were filed on 11-7-1984 after a lapse of nearly 7 years from the date of the preliminary notification and 4 years from the date of the final notification. Therefore, a heavy burden is cast on the petitioners to explain the delay in approaching this Court and the laches on their part in not approaching this court in time. ( 5 ) MR. Eswarappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, notwithstanding the claim petitions filed by them in the year 1981 and award notices served on them in the same year, the bda had given them assurance that they would not be deprived of their lands. The BDA had also given the petitioners who had put up constructions and the factory on the land in question, assurance that they would not be dispossessed from the land in question and that is the reason the petitioners did not approach this Court earlier. In support of his contention, Mr. The BDA had also given the petitioners who had put up constructions and the factory on the land in question, assurance that they would not be dispossessed from the land in question and that is the reason the petitioners did not approach this Court earlier. In support of his contention, Mr. Eswarappa relied on Annexure C which is the Form of Licence issued by the BDA which reads as under; "this Licence is renewed to (Name; and Address) M/s Maco Plast Pope Industry at Sy. No. 84/3 of Kacharakanahalli, Site Palya, Hennur Road, Bangalore-560 084, for the use of Steam Engine of 30 HP (in words) Thirty Horse Power for the purpose of installing and running an Electric motor. This license will expire on the 30-10-1984 It is subject to the conditions set forth hereunder the bye-laws framed by the B. D. A. under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act. Failure to observe any of these conditions will entail cancellation of the license and closure of the trade. Fee paid Rs. 85-00 on 27-10-83 vide Challan No. 228 dated 27-10-83. " likewise Annexure D was also issued by the BDA to the very same industry in regard to the land bearing Survey No. 82/2. The petitioners have explained the delay in approaching this Court in para 11 of the Writ Petitions. They averred thus: "the petitioner's submit that they were completely ignorant of the publication of the preliminary notification and the final notification until they saw a public notice issued by the third respondent in the "deccan Herald" dated 18-6-1981. On seeing the said public notice the petitioners requested orally and also in writing the respondents 1 and 2 to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands where they have been running their industries. Even in the replies sent by them to the notices issued to them by the Second Respondent, the petitioners have requested respondents 1 and 2 to denotify the said lands from acquisition and the first respondent has agreed to do so orally. As a matter of fact, in pursuance of the said oral assurance the first respondent has been issuing from time to time the licenses to the petitioners for running their electric motors installed in their factories as can be seen from Annexures 'c' and 'd'. As a matter of fact, in pursuance of the said oral assurance the first respondent has been issuing from time to time the licenses to the petitioners for running their electric motors installed in their factories as can be seen from Annexures 'c' and 'd'. In the circumstances the petitioners were under the bonafide impression' and belief that the respondents 1 and 2 would not proceed further in the matter, and that the acquisition proceedings were dropped. " In para 12 of the Writ Petitions, they averred thus: "to their utter surprise the petitioners received award notices under Section 12 (2) of the Land acquisition Act, from the Second Respondent asking them to hand over possession of the lands in question. The award notices dated 8-6-1984 issued by the 2nd respondent to petitioners 2 to 8 in LAC. No. 387/80-81 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 84/3 are herewith produced and are marked as Annexures 'g1' to 'g7'. The award notice dated 8-6-1984 issued by the Second respondent in LAC. No. 378/ 80-81 relating to the land bearing Sy. No. 82/2 is herewith produced and is marked as Annexure-'h'. The award notice dated 13-12-1983 issued by the 2nd respondent in LAC. No. 372/ 1980-81 pertaining to the land bearing Sy. No. 81/1 is also herewith produced and is marked as Annexure-'j'. Though the 2nd respondent has asked the petitioners to hand over the possession of the said lands, the petitioners have so far not handed over the same to the 2nd respondent. " ( 6 ) ON these averments, the point for consideration is whether the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay in approaching this Court. In my view, the petitioners had misconceived their remedies by approaching Respondents 1 and 2, viz. , the BDA and the Special Land acquisition Officer. The lands were acquired by the State Government under the relevant provisions of the BDA Act and not by the BDA. The proceedings for acquiring these lands could be dropped only by the State Government and not by the BDA. Under the scheme of the BDA act it is clear that the lands vest in the BDA under the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act. Section 36 may be noticed now. The proceedings for acquiring these lands could be dropped only by the State Government and not by the BDA. Under the scheme of the BDA act it is clear that the lands vest in the BDA under the provisions of Section 36 of the BDA Act. Section 36 may be noticed now. Section 36 (1) reads as under: "the acquisition of land under this Act otherwise than by agreement within or without the bangalore Metropolitan Area shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. " sub-section (2) of Section 36 is not necessary for the purpose of this case. Sub-section (3) of section 36 reads as under: after the land vests in the Government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the deputy Commissioner shall, upon payment of the cost of the acquisition, and upon the Authority agreeing to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of the acquisition, transfer the land to the Authority, and the land shall thereupon vest in the Authority. " if this Section is read with Section 38 of the BDA Act (the scope of which I had considered in w. Ps. Nos. 11976 of 1984 and 17534 of 1987 disposed of on 14-9-1988 ILR1989 KAR 75 Venkataswamy Reddy v. State, it is clear that no part of the land acquired by the State Government could be released by the BDA and the BDA is not competent to denotify the acquisition of the land which had been acquired for it earlier by the State Government by invoking the provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of the BDA Act. The decision rendered by me in w. P. Nos. 11976 of 1984 and 17534 of 1987 dealing with the plea of promissory estoppel claimed by the petitioners therein on the basis of the resolution passed by the BDA resolving to transfer the lands back to the owners was followed in the subsequent Writ Petition No. 12119 of 1988 BDCC Bank Employees Co-operative Society v. BDA by my learned Brother, Rama Jois,. , and the bulk allotments made by the BDA to the various societies were quashed by the learned Judge. , and the bulk allotments made by the BDA to the various societies were quashed by the learned Judge. If a proper construction is put on Section 38 of the BDA Act it is only the land belonging to the BDA that could be dealt with by the BDA in the manner it likes. If the lands are acquired by the State Government for the BDA and the lands had vested in the BDA by such acquisition, the BDA is not competent to divest itself of those lands on the representations made by the aggrieved owners. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, the petitioners had misconceived their remedies by approaching respondents 1 and 2 for the release of the lands from the impugned acquisition proceedings and what they should have done in the year 1981 when they were asked to file their claim petitions was to approach this Court directly and challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent/state Government. The petitioners having failed to do so, this Court cannot accept the reasons for explaining the delay since the year 1981 as sound and convincing. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Eswarappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners, strongly contended that there are certain new points which arise in these petitions which have not been pleaded in the earlier petitions which arose out of the very same impugned acquisition proceedings relating to banaswadi Road Hennur Road Layout and, therefore, this Court without going into the question of delay and laches, should lay down the law on the proper construction of Sections 16 (1) and section 17 (5) and Section 20 of the BDA Act. It may be that those provisions may not have been considered in the manner suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. But, when we are dealing with the acquisition of a large extent of land for a public purpose and a number of petitions filed by the owners of other lands acquired under the very same notification had been dismissed earlier by this Court and the orders of this Court also found favour with the Supreme court, it would not be in public interest to consider this case in isolation all because a new point arises for consideration. The petitions which were filed earlier in regard to the very same notification are Writ Petitions Nos. The petitions which were filed earlier in regard to the very same notification are Writ Petitions Nos. 3531, 4335, 4336 and 4491 of 1984 Venkateshappa v. B. D. A. DD 5-4-1984. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed those petitions on the ground of laches and also on the ground that in public interest this Court should not enter into the grievance of an individual owner of the land even assuming that there was no delay in approaching this Court and even assuming that the procedural requirements under the Act had not been complied with. This view of the learned single Judge was affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 1000 of 1984 Nanjamma v. B. D. A. DD 4-6-1984 and the Supreme Court did not admit the SLP filed against the orders of this Court. The observation made by the learned single Judge in kanthamma AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. W. P. No. 21097 to 21107 of 1983 DD 10-2-1984 was also affirmed by the Division Bench. The learned single judge had observed thus: "any shrewed attempt by this Court to invalidate the acquisition proceedings at the instance of a few land owners that claim ownership rights over a small area of about 10 acres in a large area of 1703 acres will undoubtedly cause incalculable hardent to the general public and this Court should be extremely slow and reluctant to interfere in such a case. " agreeing with this observation of the learned single Judge, the Division Bench observed thus: "the Court as observed by the learned single Judge would be slow to interfere with the public projects, massive or minor, unless there is compelling reason. We do not find any such compelling reason in this case. " as noticed earlier, this decision of the learned single Judge found favour of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed against the orders of this Court. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, I am not inclined to go into the merits of these Writ Petitions though Mr. Eswarappa has raised certain substantial points on the basis of provisions of Section 16 (1) (a) and 17 (5) and 20 of the BDA Act. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, one recent decision of this Court rendered by Justice Balakrishna requires to be noticed ILR1988 KAR 3125 , 1988 (2 )Karlj444. Eswarappa has raised certain substantial points on the basis of provisions of Section 16 (1) (a) and 17 (5) and 20 of the BDA Act. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, one recent decision of this Court rendered by Justice Balakrishna requires to be noticed ILR1988 KAR 3125 , 1988 (2 )Karlj444. That is also a case arising out of the provisions of the BDA Act. The point for consideration was whether in the absence of any notice in terms of the provisions of Section 17 (5) of the BDA Act the acquisition proceedings are invalid and liable to be quashed. The learned Judge observed: "it was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the B. D. A. that in the case of HARI SINGH v. STATE OF U. P. AIR1984 SC 1020 , 1984 (1 )SCALE625 , (1984 )2 scc624 , [1984 ]3 SCR417 , 1984 (16 )UJ648 (SC ) the Supreme Court has held that a Writ petition challenging the validity of acquisition proceedings filed after 2 1/2' years is liable to be dismissed for laches and, therefore, the same principle should be applied to the instant case also. In the said decision, what was under consideration was acquisition proceedings under the Land acquisition Act. The Supreme Court observed: 'it is no doubt true that the appellants have pleaded that they did not know anything about the notifications which had been published in the Gazette till they came to know of the notices issued under Section 9 (3) of the Act but they have not pleaded that there was no publication in the locality of the public notice of the substance of the notification as required by Section 4 (1) of the Act. ' the acquisition proceedings in the instant case are under the Bangalore Development Authority act and the provision relating to service of statutory notice on the petitioners is in substance to be from the notice envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act. Under the B. D. A. Act service of statutory notice on the petitioners is mandatory and any other means of publication cannot be a substitute for the kind of notice envisaged in the special statute viz. , the B. D. A. Act. Under the B. D. A. Act service of statutory notice on the petitioners is mandatory and any other means of publication cannot be a substitute for the kind of notice envisaged in the special statute viz. , the B. D. A. Act. Therefore, the principle laid down in AIR1984 SC 1020 , 1984 (1 )SCALE625 , (1984 )2 SCC624 , [1984 ] 3 SCR417 , 1984 (16 )UJ648 (SC ) is distinguishable in view of the difference not only on facts but also in law. Regarding the question of law, reliance placed on the decision in Writ Petition No. 21849 of 1986 is of no avail to the B. D. A. since there is little analogy between the case cited and this case. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of material to the contrary on record, I am of the opinion that the delay in approaching this Court deserves to be condoned. " ( 11 ) IT is submitted by the Standing Counsel for the BDA that this decision is now pending consideration before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos. 1656 and 1657 of 1988 and the division Bench has granted an order of injunction in favour of the BDA. In the decision of balakrishna, J. there is no reference to the decision of Justice Puttaswamy in Writ Petitions No. 3531, 4335, 4336 and 4491 of 1984 decided on 5-4-1984. Since the observations made by the learned Judge in Paras 11 and 12 of the decision in Writ Petition No. 3531 of 1984 and the connected cases were not brought to the notice of Justice Balakrishna, he did not have the benefit of those observations. Those observations found favour with the Division Bench and the supreme Court did not admit the SLP filed against the order of the Division Bench. The judgment of Balakrishna, J. is now pending consideration before the Division Bench and, therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to rely on this decision for recording a finding in favour of the petitioners. ( 12 ) FOR these reasons, these petitions fail and are dismissed. The judgment of Balakrishna, J. is now pending consideration before the Division Bench and, therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to rely on this decision for recording a finding in favour of the petitioners. ( 12 ) FOR these reasons, these petitions fail and are dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to make a proper representation before the Screening Committee to be constituted by the State government for processing the applications of persons who have put up constructions unauthorisedly in the lands in question by taking advantage of the Government Order dated 12-10-1987. The Screening Committee shall consider the representation, if made within 6 weeks from this date, on merits taking into consideration the Government guidelines as mentioned in the aforesaid Government Order. Till their representations are disposed of by the Screening committee, the BDA shall not dispossesses the petitioners from the premises in question nor demolish the said premises. But the petitioners shall not put up any further construction and alter the nature of the land and thereby prejudice the rights of the BDA. However, it is made clear that the cut off date for considering the regularisation of the constructions put up by the petitioners is 31-3-1986.