G. P. SHIVAPRAKASH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners were the owners of the lands in question. The said lands were acquired for formation of a residential layout by the 4th respondent-Co-operative Society. The possession of the lands has been taken and delivered to the 4th respondent and as on today the ownership of the lands vests in the 4th respondent-Society. ( 2 ) THE membership of the said Society is open only to theemployees of the Railway Mail Service and Telephone Wings of P and T Department, as stated by the petitioner. ( 3 ) IN these petitions, the petitioners allege that even thoughthe lands were acquired for formation of layout and allotment of sites to the members of the said Society, the Management of the said Society has been allotting sites to members, who are not employees of RMS and Telephone Wings of P and T. It is also alleged that the Management of the Society has been allotting sites even to non-members. ( 4 ) SRI Vijaya Shankar, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners, submitted that in view of the fact that the lands were acquired for a public purpose, to wit, for formation of a residential layout by the 4th respondent-Society and for allotment of sites to its members who are employees of the aforesaid department and since the Management of the Society has been alloting sites to others, the public purpose for which the lands were acquired is defeated; but on the other hand, in the guise of public purpose lands were acquired and given to the society which has been allotting sites to others who are not eligible for such allotment. ( 5 ) THE relief sought in these petitions is for quashing of 4 (1)Notification and 6 (1) Declaration pursuant to which the award was made and possession was taken of the lands in question. ( 6 ) IN view of the fact that acquisition has been completed bytaking possession and the petitioners have received full compensation, question of quashing of 4 (1) Notification and 6 (1) declaration does not arise. In my view, those Notifications cannot legally exist in the eye of law, as on today since acquisition has been completed. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision ofa Division Bench of this court in Mrs. In my view, those Notifications cannot legally exist in the eye of law, as on today since acquisition has been completed. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision ofa Division Bench of this court in Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Botha v special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, to emphasise that even after the acquisition is completed, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the acquisition, if the lands are diverted for purposes other than the one for which the lands were acquired. The facts of that case are totally different from the facts of this case. In that case, even before the acquisition was completed, the acquiring body had entered into certain agreements with an individual to divert the lands for private purposes. It is in those circumstances this Court concluded that such a mala fide exercise of power which is fraudulent cannot be sustained. The facts of that case clearly disclose even long before taking of possession, the acquiring body had entered into several agreements with an individual for selling of the land for private purposes. ( 8 ) I see no merit in these petitions. Besides, in my view, thepetitioners have no locus standi/sufficient interest to maintain these petitions. Hence, the petitions are rejected at the preliminary stage. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that thepetitioners have not as yet received the compensation amount. If so, they are free to receive the same unless there is some legal obstacle. --- *** --- .