HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 arises from the judgment and order dated March 30th, 1992, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Rama Jois; in Chairman, Bangalore development Authority and another v Shivanna and others , whereby the learned single judge disposed of the Writ Petition with the following observations: (a) The Writ petition is disposed of as unnecessary for the time being leaving liberty for the petitioner to State all facts which he has set out in the writ petition before the land Acquisition officer, in opposition to the objection to the Acquisition to be filed by the two Writ Petitioners, namely, the petitioners in W. P. nos. 29726 of 1981 and 29355 of 1981, and in opposition to objection of others, who Claim to have Purchased the very lands from the previous owners; (b) That the land Acquisition officer and the Bangalore development authority had been directed to consider all the points to be raised by the petitioner along with the objections to the Acquisition to be filed by the Aforesaid two Writ Petitioners and to take a decision in Accordance with law. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in the nutshell may be stated as hereunder: The Appellant-petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 21124 of 1991 with the prayer for the reliefs, As mentioned in the Writ Petition and specifically for quashing/declaring illegal, Null and Void and Non Est - By Writ of Certiorari or by the direction in the nature of certiorari, The Order Dated 8-9-1988, passed by the deputy commissioner, Bangalore district, in No. Aqb. Dis. Amn. Gr (W) 22/88-89 and order dated 16-5-1991- Annexure-F to the Writ Petition, passed by the first Respondent the State of Karnataka in No. Hud/278/ce/188, Bangalore Dated 16-5-1991, granting permission to convert the Agricultural land for Non-Agricultural Purposes and by latter order Granting Exemption under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as well as to hold that sale Dated 17-6-1991, In no way affects the petitioner of his rights. It was further claimed that this court may declare order Annexure-A to be not binding on the petitioner and the rights to the schedule property are in no way affected by Annexure-A, that is order Dated 27th july, 1984 gassed by the single judge of this court in writ petition No. 29726 of 1981 connected with Writ Petition No. 29355 of 1981. The Petitioner Prayed for Issuance of Direction to Bda and Subordinate Authorities to protect the Title and Possession of the Petitioner to the schedule land, and not to Grant any permission to any person or group of persons for making any constructions or alterations. As per Appellant-petitioner's case mentioned in the Writ Petition was that the petitioner was allotted the Schedule site in the year 1976-77, with the Approval of the Government. The Land Comprising of 528. 30 Acres of land was Acquired by the scheme formed by the bda, Relating to Gokul II Stage, Rajamahal Vilas II Stage Layout. The land acquired consisted of different survey numbers in many villages or as many as 8 villages including Sy. No. 1/1 measuring 7 acres or more of Chikkamaranahalli Village. That out of this Sy. No. 1/1, Various Sites Including Site Nos. 531 to 548, According to petitioner's case, have been carved out. Petitioner's case, That after various stages, namely of preliminary notification dated 3-1-1977, orders were passed and possession was taken by bda and compensation was paid to interested persons. Petitioner's further case is that one Shivanna, present Respondent 3, feeling aggrieved with the award of compensation filed writ petition No. 18135 of 1981 and this Hon'ble court by judgment and order dated 19-6-1981 disposed of the Writ Petition Directing the said land Acquisition officer, bda to award just Compensation. ( 3 ) PETITIONER's case is that, thereafter the Respondent 3 Filed Writ Petition No. 29726 of 1981 and Present Respondent 4 Smt. Sunandamma filed Writ Petition No. 29355 of 1981, Challenging the Acquisition of Sy. Nos. 28 and 34/1 of different Village with which the present petition giving rise to this Appeal is not concerned. No doubt in Writ Petition No. 29276 of 1981, Respondent 3, Challenged the acquisition of 21 guntas of Sy. No. 1/1 of Village Chikkamaranahalli and alleged that the said land has been excluded. That by order dated 27-7-1984-Annexure-A to the Writ Petition, the learned single judge Hon'ble Mr. No doubt in Writ Petition No. 29276 of 1981, Respondent 3, Challenged the acquisition of 21 guntas of Sy. No. 1/1 of Village Chikkamaranahalli and alleged that the said land has been excluded. That by order dated 27-7-1984-Annexure-A to the Writ Petition, the learned single judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. P. Bopanna was pleased to allow the Writ Petition No. 29355 of 1981 and to quash all the notifications preliminary and final taking the view that the entire acquisition proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction, since bda had not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 17 (5) of bda act read with sections 5 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. It may be mentioned here that when the decision was given in the above Writ Petition No. 29355 of 1981, according to the petitioner's case bda did not file any objections, though it had put in appearance. According to Petitioner's case, land bearing Sy. No. 1/1 of Chikkamaranahalli was acquired under preliminary notification Dated 3-1-1977 and final notification dated 2-8-1978. ( 4 ) AWARD in respect of land mentioned above was passed on 5-8-1980 and possession of the land had been taken by bda on 30-7-1981. Thereafter bda formed the layout and according petitioner allotted various sites formed in the layout in favour of various persons, and further according to petitioner, One of such sites carved out of the land bearing Sy. No. 1/1 was allotted to the Petitioner, that is the appellant and he was put in possession of the site. The bda when it came to know about the above Order, Moved C. P. No. 144 of 1989 and C. P. No. 144-A of 1989 for the review of order passed by the learned single judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice bopanna), by which the learned single judge had quashed the acquisition proceedings. That during pendency of the review petition, the 5th respondent filed an application before the special deputy commissioner to grant her permission for conversion of land, bearing sy. Nos. 1/1 and 44 in chikkamaranahalli village measuring 2. 14 acres and 35 guntas respectively, from agricultural to non-agricultural land. It may be mentioned here that, according to the petitioner-appellant, Sri Anjanappa, original owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 1/1 and 44, as above had got the same by registered partition deed. Nos. 1/1 and 44 in chikkamaranahalli village measuring 2. 14 acres and 35 guntas respectively, from agricultural to non-agricultural land. It may be mentioned here that, according to the petitioner-appellant, Sri Anjanappa, original owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 1/1 and 44, as above had got the same by registered partition deed. He had died in the year 1982 leaving sonnamma, 5th respondent and his two sons and that sonnamma, as such and as mentioned earlier, moved the application for permission, as above. ( 5 ) PETITIONER's case is that bda informed the deputy commissioner about the pendency of the review application, that is C. P. No. 144 of 1989, filed by the bda before this court and opposed the grant of conversion, but deputy commissioner by his order dated 8-9-1988 granted permission to convert the agricultural land into non-agricultural and for its user for non-agricultural purposes. ( 6 ) LATER on, according to petitioner the 5th respondent by registered sale deed dated 17th of june, 1991, sold the aforesaid land in favour of the 6th respondent in the writ petition, the 6th respondent in the writ petition is M/s. Nikhil Constructions Company. It may also be mentioned here that an application was also filed by 5th and 6th respondents before the government for grant of exemption of the aforesaid land from the purview of the Provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act. This application was also filed during the pendency of the review petition, Namely C. P. No. 144 of 1989. ( 7 ) IN the review petition, at the initial stage, court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, but 5th respondent, her son and daughter had sold the land in question to 6th respondent. The petitioner in his petition has alleged that the deputy commissioner of land acquisition, 2nd respondent suggested bda not to pursue the review petition. ( 7 ) IN the review petition, at the initial stage, court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, but 5th respondent, her son and daughter had sold the land in question to 6th respondent. The petitioner in his petition has alleged that the deputy commissioner of land acquisition, 2nd respondent suggested bda not to pursue the review petition. Looking to that circumstance government has not chosen to disapprove the suggestion of deputy commissioner (land acquisition) not to pursue the review petition and in view of orders dated 8-9-1988 and 16-5-1991 and sale deed 17-6-1991, petitioner apprehended that acts of omission and commission of the respondents 1 and 2, may result in total deprivation of the rights of the petitioner to scheduled sites which had been allotted to the petitioner on the land in question after acquisition, and as such the petitioner filed writ petition No. 21124 of 1991. Petitioner asserted that additional deputy commissioner had no power to grant sanction or permission to convert agricultural land into non-agricultural land, in view of decision of this court in ILR 1988 Kar. 1930 (SIC ). Petitioner asserted that he apprehend it, that respondents may alter the status quo in respect of site bearing No. 548, which according to petitioner had been carved out on Sy. No. 1/1, chikkamaranahalli village which formed the part of the scheduled site. As the order sheet indicates, on 30-9-1991, Rule nisi was issued and stay was granted, staying the operation of the impugned Annexures. Later on it appears an application La. I was moved for Clubbing the writ petition with C. P No. 144 of 1989. This La. I was moved on 2-1-1992 and is on record and it was placed with office report dated 29-2-1992 and on 19-3-1092, this writ petition was heard along with the C. P. No. 144 of 1989 and judgment was delivered by this court (hon'ble Mr. Justice rama jois) on 30-3-1992. Neither respondent 5, nor respondent 3 and nor respondent 6, even prayed for time to file any counter-affidavit at that time, though they appeared through their counsels. The c. p. No. 144 of 1989 was heard and disposed of by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Rama jois order dated 30-9-1992. ( 8 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsels for the parties, in that case, Hon'ble Mr. The c. p. No. 144 of 1989 was heard and disposed of by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Rama jois order dated 30-9-1992. ( 8 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsels for the parties, in that case, Hon'ble Mr. Justice rama jois modified the order passed in the writ petition and material portion of the order dated 30-9-1992 reads as under: "review petitions - C. P. Nos. 144 and 144 a of 1989 are allowed. The orders in the writ petitions are modified as follows: the impugned final notification is quashed only insofar as it relates to following extent of lands: ( 21 ) AS the order dated 27-7-1984 and the modified order dated 30-3-1992 passed in course of proceeding of writ petition No. 29726 of 1981 have been set aside and the writ petition itself having been dismissed by the division bench by its order dated 18-6-1997 passed in W. A. No. 1616 of 1992. The relief claimed was that the order dated 27-7-1984 under Annexure-A to the writ petition is not binding and has become infructuous, for the present until and unless that order is reversed by an order of the Higher Court. As such the relief claimed under head-c of the relief clause that this court may declare that the order at Annexure-A is not binding on the petitioner and that rights to the scheduled properties in any way are not affected by it has become infructuous, as order dated 27-7-1984 Annexure-A and modified order dated 30-3-1992 passed by the single judge in writ petition No. 29726 of 1981, have ceased to exist by having set aside the order in the writ appeal, and the writ petition No. 29726 of 1981 having been dismissed, the relief 'c' claimed in the present writ petition giving rise to this appeal cannot be granted. It is further to be held that order of exemption of the land in question from urban land ceiling and Regulation Act, in view of acquisition having been completed and orders setting aside notifications of acquisition having been set aside, the order granting exemption cannot have any effect, so far as acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act and under bda Act, 1979 is concerned. Those orders have automatically become infructuous as well as nugatory and illegal. Those orders have automatically become infructuous as well as nugatory and illegal. As once the land has been acquired, the respondents cannot claim to have any right over the land acquired including site allotted to the appellant, namely site No. 548, as described in the memo petition of the appeal if is situate on sy. No. 1/1, as claimed by the petitioner-appellant. ( 22 ) AS the acquisition proceedings having been upheld, in view of the order dated 18th june, 1997, passed in w. a. No. 1616 of 1992, the orders dated 8-9-1988 and 16-5-1991, have to be deemed to be illegal, null and void and are not to affect adversely nor on the basis thereof respondent can dispossess the petitioner from his site, even if it is situate on 1/1, but if it is situate on sy. No. 44, as alleged at the stage of hearing by the respondents, even then under these orders dated 8-9- 1988 and 16-5-1991, respondents are not entitled to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the site, namely site No. 548, as according to the petitioner and respondent these orders dated 8-9-1988 and 16-5-1991 relate to site on Sy. No. 1/1 and not Sy. No. 44. So in both the cases, as to whether the site No. 548 is situate on Sy. No. 1/1 or on Sy. No. 44, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the site No. 548. The question of fact: whether site No. 548 is situate on Sy. No. 1/1 or Sy. No. 44, is a question of fact to be decided at the proper stage by a court of fact, but herein the present case; whether it is situate on sy. No. 1/1 or 44, in either of the cases the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the petitioner's possession in the above circumstances. ( 23 ) THE effect of order of the division bench dated 18-6-1997 further is, that the order of the learned single judge which tantamounts to dismissal of the present writ petition with direction to present petitioner to file objection before land acquisition officer, in reply to present respondent's objection to acquisition proceeding preliminary notification, has to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed and it is held that the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over site No. 548; whether it is situate on Sy. No. 1/1 or sy. No. 44, in view of acquisition of Sy. No. 1/1. Relief Number-C, as mentioned earlier in the Writ petition has already become infructuous, in view of order passed by the division bench in W. A. No. 1616 of 1992, where the orders passed by the single judge quashing both the notifications preliminary and final, as well the one clarifying that final notification is quashed, both have to be deemed to have been set aside, once the reliefs claimed in the writ petition No. 29726 of 1981 has been refused and said writ petition has been dismissed, and as such once those orders have been set aside and there is no question of order Annexure-A being binding on the petitioner, as it has ceased to exist. The Writ Petition and Writ Appeal are, As such, Disposed of in the above terms. --- *** --- .