A. J. SADASHIVA, J. ( 1 ) THE first set of these petitions are listed for preliminary hearing and the second set are posted for orders. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, they are heard on merits and disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) ). The petitioners are stated to be the holders of agreements of sale executed by respondents 5 to 12 in their favour in respect of different sites in Sy. Nos. 403/2b, 408/2b+2a/2, 406/4, 392/2c+3b/3, 399/4, 396/2 and 397/3, 398/3+4/a, 499/1a+1b/2/1 and 15/1/1a+1b+2a+2b+2c situated in Unkal Village, Hubli Taluk. The aforesaid lands alongwith other lands were notified for acquisition pursuant to the scheme prepared by the third respondent. After complying with the provisions of Sections 17 (5) and 18, a declaration is also issued u/s. 19 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987. The owners of the aforesaid lands have formed sites and agreed to transfer the same in favour of the petitioners after the publication of the preliminary notification and receipt of notice u/s. 17 (5) of the Urban Development Authorities Act. The petitioners contend that, they are put in possession of respective sites agreed to be sold in their favour and they have also put up certain constructions. They were not aware of the acquisition proceedings; they came to know of the acquisition proceedings when they received notices under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The petitioners have, therefore, filed these petitions for quashing the acquisition proceedings and also the notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per Annexures B and B1 and the notices issued under the provisions of the Planning Act as per Annexure-E and E1, with a further writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 4 to regularise the unauthorised constructions of buildings on plot numbers and survey numbers shown by the petitioners. ( 3 ) IN view of the decision of this Court in Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society v. Bailamma alias Dodda Bailamma, ILR 1998 Kant 1441 : (1998 AIHC 2358), the petitioners have no locus to assail the acquisition proceedings and the consequences thereof. ( 3 ) IN view of the decision of this Court in Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society v. Bailamma alias Dodda Bailamma, ILR 1998 Kant 1441 : (1998 AIHC 2358), the petitioners have no locus to assail the acquisition proceedings and the consequences thereof. These petitions in so far as they relate to the challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the impugned notices as per Annexures D, D1, E and E1 are liable to be rejected on the ground that the petitioners have no locus-standi to question the correctness of the same. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have, however, contended that, they are entitled for regularisation of their unauthorised constructions in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions In Urban Areas Act, 1991 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). Sri. Chandangoudar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that, that in view of clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Act, the sites belong to the petitioners and, therefore, they are entitled for regularisation of unauthorised constructions. ( 5 ) SECTION 3 of the Act deals with regularisation of unauthorised constructions and it reads thus :-"3. Regularisation 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to such rules as may be prescribed, any unauthorised construction made in any urban area, except those specified in Section 4, made prior to the 31st day of December 1995, by any person, on land, - (i) belonging to the State Government, or (ii) which is a revenue site owned by him; or (iii) belonging to him which is proposed to be acquired in connection with any development scheme of an Authority, in relation to which a notification under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, or under S. 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, or u/s. 15 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976, is published and which has not yet vested in favour of any Authority for which the acquisition is proposed,may, on the application of such person made within sixty days of the commencement of this Act, be regularised in accordance with the provisions of this Act. " ( 6 ) SRI. R. H. Chandangoudar relying on clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Act has contended that, the aforementioned lands were notified for acquisition u/s. 17 (3) of the Urban Development Authorities Act in pursuance of the scheme prepared by the third respondent. " ( 6 ) SRI. R. H. Chandangoudar relying on clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Act has contended that, the aforementioned lands were notified for acquisition u/s. 17 (3) of the Urban Development Authorities Act in pursuance of the scheme prepared by the third respondent. The land is not yet vested in the State Government. The petitioners have been in occupation of unauthorised constructions made on sites formed in the aforesaid lands and, therefore, they belong to them and as such they are entitled for consideration of their case for regularisation of unauthorised constructions. ( 7 ) THIS Court in Raju Reddy v. Commissioner, BDA, ILR 1995 Kar 2514, has held that :"the right to obtain regularisation of an unauthorised construction is a special relief under the Act. It is different from the right to obtain an order prohibiting an Authority from demolishing an unauthorised structure. A Court will give such relief only if the action of the Authority is arbitrary or mala fide. If an applicant makes out a prima facie or reasonable case showing a right to obtain regularisation under the Act, the Court may consider any action by an Authority, to demolish the unauthorised construction, as arbitrary and unreasonable and grant an order restraining demolition. But, on the other hand, if a petitioner does not make out prima facie that he is entitled to regularisation under the Act or where the respondents prove that Section 3 is not applicable in view of the case falling u/s. 4, the question of this Court issuing a direction prohibiting demolition or dispossession will not arise. " ( 8 ) SRI. Chandangoudar placing emphasis on the expression "belong to him" as used in Clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Act has contended that, the petitioners have been in unauthorised occupation. They have a right to hold the property and, therefore, they belong to them and thus they are entitled for regularisation. It is well settled that, in construing any statutory provision, the expression used therein should not be read in isolation, they should be read with reference to the other expressions used therein so that the purport and intent of such provision would be revealing. It is well settled that, in construing any statutory provision, the expression used therein should not be read in isolation, they should be read with reference to the other expressions used therein so that the purport and intent of such provision would be revealing. The expressions "belonging to him" used in clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Act should be read alongwith the expression "which is proposed to be acquired for development scheme" and the dominance and control over such land. In this case it cannot be said that the petitioners have dominance and control over the sites agreed to be purchased by them from the owners of the land in question as they have no legal right to deal with such property in the manner they like. The meaning of the words "belong and belonging" as given in the Black's Law Dictionary are as follows :-a) belong 1. to apprertain to; to be the property of; to be a member of; to be appropriate; to own. b) belonging:- that which is connected with a principal or greater thing; an appendage, an appertenance; also, ownership. It is, therefore, clear that the unauthorised occupants of sites in pursuance of an agreement of sale in respect of a land which is notified for acquisition in pursuance of a development scheme cannot contend that such lands belong to them. It is admitted that, the lands in question do not belong to the Government. It is further admitted that the petitioners are not the owners of the revenue sites. It is also on record that the notifications have not been issued in the name of the petitioners and the land do not belong to them as on the date of publication of preliminary notification. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to accede to the contention of Sri. Chandangoudar that the land belong to the petitioners and since not vested in the Urban Development Authority, they are entitled for regularisation of their unauthorised constructions. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid decision of this Court as the petitioners have failed to establish prima facie that they are entitled for regularisation of unauthorised constructions, I am of the considered view that no purpose would be served in directing the authorities to consider their case under the provisions of the Act as such a direction would result in exercise in futility. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, these petitions fail and accordingly rejected. ( 11 ) AFTER the petitions are disposed of, Sri. Chandangoudar makes an oral application for stay of demolition of construction for a period of 8 weeks. In view of the interim order having been in force till today, I deem it just and appropriate to suspend the order for a period of 6 weeks. It is ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .