( 1 ) THE Petitioners have filed these petitions requesting this Court to direct the respondents to consider their applications for regularization of their constructions made upon the petition schedule properties under the provisions of the Karnataka Regularization of unauthorized constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991 (in short Act) and not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule properties. A prayer is made to declare that the entire acquisition proceedings of the land by the state Government in favour of 7th respondent-Society (In short called as Society) have been lapsed. ( 2 ) DURING pendency of these writ petitions, petitioners have filed an application seeking amendment to the prayer column of the writ petitions to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners either under the provisions of the KRUCUA Act, 1991 or as per the Government order dated 12. 10. 1987, 27. 9. 1990 and other Government orders which are in force or any subsequent Government Order issued subsequent to 1. 1. 2000 and to grant such other relief/reliefs. The application has been opposed by filing objections by the society. The application is also heard along with the main writ petitions. Since the application was filed by the petitioners during the course of arguments on merits, in the interest of justice the application is allowed. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are stated as hereunder: (a ). The petitioners are the purchasers of sites described in the schedules of the petitions, formed in land bearing survey No. 17/13 of Yellukunte village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the date of purchase. The different site numbers, house list numbers in respect of each one of the petitioners are clearly mentioned in the schedules in the petitions. It is stated that after purchase, Khatas of the respective sites have been made in their favour by the City Municipal Council Panchayats and they have paid the betterment charges/property taxes to the concerned Local Authorities. The KPTCL has given electricity connections to the houses constructed by the petitioners. It is stated by the petitioners that they were not aware of the fact that the land in question was acquired by the state Government in favour of the 7th respondent Society. Being bonafide purchasers, they have constructed the houses. (b ). The KPTCL has given electricity connections to the houses constructed by the petitioners. It is stated by the petitioners that they were not aware of the fact that the land in question was acquired by the state Government in favour of the 7th respondent Society. Being bonafide purchasers, they have constructed the houses. (b ). It is the case of the petitioners that though the state Government acquired the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the L. A. Act ). The final notification was issued under Section 6 (1) the KLA Act. It is asserted by them that no steps have been taken by the contesting respondents to take possession of the lands and the land owners also have not claimed compensation amount. It is further stated that 1st respondent-Government did not complete the scheme as contemplated under Sections 3 (f) (vi) and 27 of the LA Act. It is the case of the petitioners that under section 6 of the Act that the Government is the competent authority empowered to sanction the scheme for acquisition of the lands and the possession of the lands should have been taken as expeditiously as possible. It is their case that section 16 (2) Notification under the LA Act came to be issued only on 6. 1. 1997 a3 per Annexure-S. It is further stated that in the order passed in W. P. Nos. 29785 and 30509/99 disposed of on 28. 1. 2000, it is stated that the Land Acquisition officer (in short LAO) has stated that section 16 (2) notification was issued on 6. 1. 1997 which was gazeteed on 16-1-1997 and the possession of the land was taken on 29. 12. 1999. The copy of the order of this Court dated 28. 1. 2000 is produced at Annexure-T. The said statement is only the report of the LAO and not section 16 (2) notification. (c ). It is the further case of the petitioners that recently the respondents went near the schedule properties and demolished portions of the buildings constructed by the petitioners, including other houses built in survey No. 17/13 when the petitioners approached the respondents, they were informed that further demolition would be made in the near future. It is further stated that Spl. LAO by means of a report dated 21. 3. It is further stated that Spl. LAO by means of a report dated 21. 3. 2000 has stated that as many as 70 buildings have been put up in survey Nos. 20/11 and 21/3 which are adjoining to the land in survey No. 17/13 and he recommended for regularization of those constructions as per Annexure-V. It is the further case of the petitioners that in view of the fact that only Section 16 (2) notification came to be issued, the possession taken is only symbolic, but actual physical Possession is still with the petitioners. Therefore, they have approached this Court seeking for grant of the reliefs stated supra. (d ). It is the further case of the petitioners that they have filed applications before the competent Authorities for regularization of their unauthorized constructions under Amended Act. It is stated that those applications are still pending consideration before the competent authorities. They have produced acknowledgements for having submitted applications vide Annexure - W series. They have also produced photographs of the buildings as Annexure-X series which were constructed upon the schedule properties and arbitrarily demolished by the respondent No. 7 in active connivance with the other respondents. It is their further case that immediately after the demolition, they lodged complaints with the jurisdictional police and sought protection. It is alleged that the police refused to receive the complaint on the ground that the Tahasildar has requested the Deputy commissioner of police to give protection for demolition of the buildings. The copies of the complaints and the acknowledgements for having sent the complaints by RPAD are produced as Annexure-Y series. The copy of the letter dated 13. 1. 2000 issued by the Tahasildar seeking police protection is also produced vide Annexure-Z. (e ). It is stated though the acquisition proceedings started in the years 1985 and 1986, nothing is done in the matter. Even in the report submitted by the LAO to the Government, it is stated that unauthorized constructions have been made upon the lands in question. Therefore, the possession of the lands have not been delivered to the 7th respondent-Society, but the physical possession of the land in question are still with the petitioners. In the circum- stances, it is asserted that acquisition proceedings in respect of the properties in question does not survive in favour of 7th respondent-Society. Therefore, the possession of the lands have not been delivered to the 7th respondent-Society, but the physical possession of the land in question are still with the petitioners. In the circum- stances, it is asserted that acquisition proceedings in respect of the properties in question does not survive in favour of 7th respondent-Society. Reliance is placed upon the provisions of Amended Act 1991 contending that since there was no section 16 (2) notification as on the date when the said Act came into force, the right to seek regularization is available for the petitioners. The right of the petitioners could not have been taken away by the 1st respondent by issuing the Notification subsequently under the provision of section 16 (2) of the LA Act. It is urged that the State Government has no power for issuing Section 16 (2) notification as the petitioners have acquired the right for regularization under the provisions of Act of 1991. It is their case that construction of the buildings had already been made upon their respective schedule sites after obtaining necessary khata from the Local Authority. According to the petitioners, the society did not submit its proposal for sanctioning of the lay out plan to the competent authorities including Bangalore Development Authority (in short BDA ). What was submitted to the BDA by the 7th respondent society was only to the extent of 33 acres out of 57 acres and for the remaining extent of land they could not submit the layout plan either to the Government or the BDA as the entire land was developed and in the vast area of the land constructions were made including the petition schedule properties. It is stated that whether the housing scheme of the society has been got approved or implemented, is not evidenced by producing the relevant documents by the contesting respondents, particularly the respondent-society. Therefore, it is stated that due to non-implementation of the housing scheme by the Society for which purpose lands were acquired, the acquisition proceedings automatically lapsed. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that though Karnataka Act No. 1/2000 has received the assent of the Governor but the same is not gazetted. Government has issued the circular stating that the G. Os. dated 12. 10. 1997 and 27. 9. 1990 are repealed by Act No. 1/2000. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that though Karnataka Act No. 1/2000 has received the assent of the Governor but the same is not gazetted. Government has issued the circular stating that the G. Os. dated 12. 10. 1997 and 27. 9. 1990 are repealed by Act No. 1/2000. Since the provisions of the BDA Act was amended by inserting Section 38 (C) (2) to regularize the unauthorized constructions made upon the acquired lands by the BDA for housing purpose in favour of unauthorized occupants after collecting the betterment charges, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs a prayed in these petitions. It is their further case that though final notification was issued in the year 1986 under the provisions of LA Act, no award came to be passed by the Spl. L. A. O. within a period of two years as required in law and therefore, the land acquisition proceedings deemed to have been lapsed. Consequently, it is urged that the respondent-Society will not get any right whatsoever upon the lands in question. ( 5 ) THE 7th respondent-society filed a detailed statement of counter traversing various petition averments. It is stated that on 28. 1. 1985 preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act was issued public notice has issued on 9. 2. 1985 pursuant to the preliminary notification. Final notification was issued on 24. 1. 1986, which was gazetted on 27. 1. 1986. Paper publication was made in The Times of India on 29. 1. 1986 and in Samyuktha Karnataka Kannada News paper on 30. 1. 1986. According to the 7th respondent-society on 24. 8. 1997 award was passed by the L. A. O. Thereafter possession of the lands were handed over to the Society. It is stated that acquisition proceedings were challenged by the land owners in respect of the land bearing survey No. 17/13 in W. P. No. 13302/90, which was dismissed by this Court on 13. 9. 96. The land owners also challenged acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands bearing Sy. No. 20/8 and other lands in W. P. No. 764-780/1991 and connected matters before this Court, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this court vide its order dated 3. 9. 1996. Against that order, SLP (C) No. 5561-5563/97 was filed, which were also dismissed vide order dated 1. 08. No. 20/8 and other lands in W. P. No. 764-780/1991 and connected matters before this Court, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this court vide its order dated 3. 9. 1996. Against that order, SLP (C) No. 5561-5563/97 was filed, which were also dismissed vide order dated 1. 08. 1997 as per Annexure-R3. It is further stated by the Society that the transactions were made between the petitioners and their vendors under whom they are claiming rights upon the lands the rights of the vendors are also subject to the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it is stated that neither the vendors nor petitioners have any right in respect of the lands in question. After acquisition of the lands in question and passing awards the Possession of the lands were handed over to the Society by the State Government and BDA. Hence, it is asserted that the Society is in possession of the lands in question and that the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs prayed in these petitions. The assertions made by the petitioners that they are in possession of the petition schedule properties by constructing houses and are residing therein are all denied. It is asserted that they are all false, incorrect and baseless. It is stated that as the erstwhile landowners had challenged the acquisition proceedings before this court and they were unsuccessful before this court and supreme court, and since the acquisition of the acquired lands is upheld, purchase of the petitions schedule properties by the petitioners is illegal and therefore no right or interest is accrued in their favour. The vendors rights upon the lands was extinguished pursuant to the acquisition by the State under the provisions of the LA Act. Therefore, it is contended that they do not have the locus-standi to file these petitions and they are liable to be dismissed on this ground. Further it is asserted by the Society that the documents which are produced by the petitioners such as No Objection Certificate from the Municipal council, electricity connections obtained to their houses and tax paid receipts for having paid property Tax are all concocted for the purpose of these cases and therefore this court need not place any reliance upon those documents. It is stated that the petitioners have no manner of right, title or interest upon the lands they cannot object to the respondents from developing the same, forming layouts and allotting sites to its members for whose benefit the acquisition of the land was made by the state Government therefore the respondent-Society prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. ( 6 ) THIS court appointed court commissioner on 13. 4. 2000. Commissioner executed the Commission warrant on 19. 4. 2000. At the time of executing the commission work the Spl. LAO, Surveyor, Revenue Inspector of Land Acquisition Office, Bangalore south Taluk were present, but the 11th respondent. Tahasildar was absent though he was ordered to be present. The Commissioner has submitted his report on 15. 5. 2000. The relevant portion of the same are extracted hereunder: as per our opinion there were buildings existing before, but at present there are no buildings existing. But we have identified broken pieces of walls, foundation stones, Toilet commode fixing to the floor, bore-well and we noticed foundation marks of the buildings. We can say demolition has taken place in the suit schedule properties. We were not able to measure the extant of the constructions raised by the petitioners in the above case since there were no existing building or partly demolished buildings. In connection with the above matter we have taken photographs and we have enclosed the said 22 Nos. of photographs herewith. ( 7 ) IN the report it is indicated that court commissioners have noticed that there are electricity facilities to all petition schedule properties and City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli is forming a new road connecting to the properties involved in writ petition Nos. 13323-39/00. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have placed strong reliance upon the commissioners report and contended that the said report clearly goes to show that the petitioners have been in possession and they have constructed the residential houses upon their respective properties, which have been illegally demolished at the instance of the 7th respondent-Society by the Tahasildar without due process of law. The police did not give protection to the petitioners to protect their properties though they submitted the complaints to the respondents seeking police protection. The police did not give protection to the petitioners to protect their properties though they submitted the complaints to the respondents seeking police protection. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the existence of the residential buildings put up by the petitioners upon the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing these petitions clearly go to show that they have been in possession of the lands in question. That being so, possession of the same could not have been taken by the Government at any point of time and delivered to the society. This Court in the order passed in the said petition recorded the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and issued a direction to the State Government to hand over possession of the lands in survey Nos. 17/12, 17/13, 20/8 to the respondent-society after obtaining approval within three months from the date of passing of the said order. Therefore, it is contended that the said direction issued to the Government by this Court clearly support the case of the petitioners that petitioners are in possession of the schedule properties. Thereafter it is contended by the Petitioners counsel that the society is not in Possession or the lands. Further it is urged that the above fact is further proved by the action of the Society in filing Contempt Petition against State Government for not complying with the order passed in W. P. NO6. 1576-77/00 dated 7-8-2000 though time granted was expired on 27. 4. 2000. The said document is produced by the petitioners for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the possession of the lands acquired was not taken by the Government and in turn possession was not handed over to the Society by the Government. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the amendment application IA-IV, which application was allowed, it is stated that representation was submitted to the State Government for denotification of the lands in question. The said representa- tion was referred to the Revenue Minister as per the Karnataka Government (Business Transactions) Rule6 of 1977 and the Government took a decision on 28. 11. 2000 to delete the said lands from the acquisition proceedings. This relevant fact came to their knowledge about one week prior to filing of the said application. The said representa- tion was referred to the Revenue Minister as per the Karnataka Government (Business Transactions) Rule6 of 1977 and the Government took a decision on 28. 11. 2000 to delete the said lands from the acquisition proceedings. This relevant fact came to their knowledge about one week prior to filing of the said application. Therefore it is urged that the said subsequent facts shall be taken into consideration to mould the reliefs in these petitions. The Government has taken a decision to de-notify the same on the basis of the reports furnished by the Tahasildar, CMC, Bommanahalli, Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore City, Special Land Acquisition Officer, B. D. A. The further proceedings could not be taken by the Authority in the matter on the ground that there was an ordinance promulgated to delete the provision of Section 38c (2) from the Act, which was inserted to the BDA by way of an amendment. The said ordinance was repealed by Act No. 1/2000, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 05. 01. 2000 vide Annexure-S. Therefore, it is urged that the rights conferred upon the petitioners for regularization of their respective schedule sites pursuant to the Government orders referred to supra still exist. The said policy of the State Govern- ment to regularize the unauthorized occupation by issuing the G. O. in exercise on its executive power under Article 162 of the constitution of India has to be given effect to. Under clause 3 of that order dated 27-9-1990, unauthorized construction is defined to mean, a structure put up without a building licence (or even with a building licence) issued in violation of prescribed rules and procedure whether on a regular site legally purchased, revenue site formed in an unauthorized layout or on landsite belonging to other person authority/government in violation of one or more of the acts referred to therein. The said Government Order were sought to be repealed by amending the provisions of section 38 (C) (2) of the BDA Act. But that Section has been repealed by Act No. l/2000, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of JOHN. B. and. ORS VS. B. D. A. ANOTHER reported in ILR 2000 (4) KAR 4134. But that Section has been repealed by Act No. l/2000, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of JOHN. B. and. ORS VS. B. D. A. ANOTHER reported in ILR 2000 (4) KAR 4134. ( 9 ) THEREFORE it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the rights acquired by the petitioners under the Government orders referred to supra revives in view of Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act. Reliance was also placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1962 SC 945 , AIR 1990 SC page 104, AIR 1977 SC 1884 , AIR. 1977 SC 1900, AI R 1985 SC 724, AIR 1985 SC 735 . Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the reliefs prayed in the petitions be granted. The learned Counsel Mr. G. L. Vishwanath, appearing on behalf of the 7th respondent-society, per contra, at the outset, has submitted that the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India need not be exercised in favour of the petitioners as they have deliberately suppressed material facts and stated false facts in these petitions with a deliberate intention to get the reliefs. Therefore, he has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs at the hands of this Court. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 1956 (1) MAD. L. J. 324. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported in ILR 1995 KAR 2323, ILR 1995 KAR 2514, 1993 (3) KLJ 576, AIR 1999 KAR 38 , in support of the proposition that the unauthorized constructions which have come up upon the category of lands mentioned in clauses I to IX of Section 4 of Karnataka Regularization of Unauthorized constructions in urban Areas Act (in short KRUCUA), 1991 shall not be regularized. Therefore, he has contended that there is nothing left in these petitions for the Screening committee to examine the claims of the petitioners and to pass orders on their applications seeking regularization. According to him, it is only an empty normality of conducting an enquiry by the Committee on their applications. Therefore, he has contended that there is nothing left in these petitions for the Screening committee to examine the claims of the petitioners and to pass orders on their applications seeking regularization. According to him, it is only an empty normality of conducting an enquiry by the Committee on their applications. It is urged that there are no rights accrued in their favour for issuance of a writ of Mandamus by this court to the committee to consider their claim and pass appropriate orders. Further, it is urged that it is not the intention of the Karnataka Regularization of Unauthorized constructions in Urban Areas Act to regu- larize the unauthorized encroachments made upon other properties by the persons by putting up unlawful buildings and ask for regularization of such unauthorized constructions. Further, it is stated that the unauthorized construction of the buildings by the petitioners are on the land vested with the BDA, as the same has been transferred to it by the State Government pursuant to the acquisition made by the 1st respondent for the benefit of the members of the society, and therefore the screening committee cannot regularize the unauthorized buildings. Therefore, it is urged that the unauthorized constructions of the petitioners, if any, upon the lands in question are liable to be demolished and they are liable to be evicted. It is contended that the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioners, as the same would amount to perpetuate the illegal actions of the petitioners who have trespassed and made constructions upon the lands belonging to and vested with the state Government and the B. D. A. Therefore, the 7th respondent Counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. ( 10 ) THE submissions of the counsel for 7th respondent are reiterated by the learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the state Government. The learned Counsel Smt. Sujatha appearing on behalf of BDA also placed reliance upon a decision reported in ILR 2000 KAR 4134 in JOHH. B. JAMES and ORS. VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANR. , in support of the proposition that the ordinance issued by the Governor of state to delete the amended provisions of Section 38 (C) (2) of BDA Act, which Act was not given effect to as the same has been repealed by Act No. 1/2000. B. JAMES and ORS. VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANR. , in support of the proposition that the ordinance issued by the Governor of state to delete the amended provisions of Section 38 (C) (2) of BDA Act, which Act was not given effect to as the same has been repealed by Act No. 1/2000. Therefore, it contended by the learned counsel, for the BDA that no rights can be claimed by the petitioners upon the petitions schedule properties by virtue of the said amended provisions of the Act as the said provision is not in the BDA Act. This legal position of the case has been extensively considered by this Court in the aforesaid case and held that the repealing of the amended provisions of section 38 (C) (2) of the BDA Act by Act No. l/2000 does not confer any right upon the petitioners for seeking regularization of their unauthorized constructions. Therefore, she submits that the law laid down in the aforesaid case is applicable to the facts of this case. Hence she strongly contended that petitioners are not entitled for any relief whatsoever and prayed for dismissal of these petitions. ( 11 ) WITH reference to the pleadings and rival legal contentions urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties the following points arise for consideration of this Court:i) Whether the petitions are maintainable in view of Act No. l/1991 and the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs, though the amended provisions of section 38 (C) (2) of the BDA Act was not given effect and subsequently the same was repealed by Act No. l/2000?ii) By repealing the amended provisions of Section 36 (C) (2) of the BDA (Amendment Act), whether the Government order dated 12. 10. 1987 issued by the state Government in exercise of its Executive Power under Article 162 of the constitution of India has got statutory force, and the rights acquired by the petitioners under the said Government Order would survive for consideration by the screening committee for considering the claims of regularization of the unauthorized occupants/petitioners?iii) To what relief the petitioners are entitled to in these petitions?answer to the Point No. 1: It is an undisputed fact that the acquisition proceedings were commenced in the year 1985 by the 1st respondent- State Government to acquire the lands in question for the benefit of the respondent-society. The same was concluded according to the society on 24. 8. 1987 as per the order passed by this court in W. P. No. 2978 5/99 c/w W. P. No. 30509/99 which were disposed on 28. 1. 2000. Pursuant to the said order, Contempt Petition No. 1576/2000 was filed by the society on 7. 8. 2000 to initiate contempt proceeding against the 1st respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed in the W. Ps. It would clearly goes to show that the possession of the land was not handed over by the state government to the society. The legal contention urged by the petitioners counsel that the acquisition proceedings lapsed on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 11-A of LA Act, and even after lapse of two years from the date of issuance of Notification under section 6 of the LA Act the award was not passed, these legal questions raised in these petitions are not considered in these petitions, as the same is not required for the purpose of considering the prayers sought for by the petitioners. As could be seen from the petition averments undisputedly, the petitioners have purchased the properties from the land owners under the sale deeds produced by them. Admittedly they have purchased the sites after 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996 and 1997 which facts are clearly stated at pages 5 and 6 of the statement of counter filed by the society. Therefore, the provision of Section 38 (C) (2) of the BDA Act is applicable to the applications filed by the petitioners, cannot be disputed section 38 (C) (2) was inserted by way of an amendment to the BDA Act to regularize the unauthorized occupants of the lands belonging to it and who have constructed houses either on their site or upon the revenue site formed in an unauthorized layout or on the site belonging to either person/authority/ Government in violation of the various Enactments. Law was not enacted by the State Legislature in exercise of its Legislative Power under the relevant entry of State List in the constitution of India covering the cases of the present category of persons who are in unauthorized occupation of the land or site belonging to the State Government/bda. Law was not enacted by the State Legislature in exercise of its Legislative Power under the relevant entry of State List in the constitution of India covering the cases of the present category of persons who are in unauthorized occupation of the land or site belonging to the State Government/bda. Therefore, the Government Orders issued by the state Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the constitution of India referred to supra are in force. Therefore, statutory rights are conferred upon the petitioners and similarly placed persons, in respect of the unauthorized construction of the houses upon property belonging to person/authority/government. This legal right is not conferred upon the petitioners under the provisions of KRUCUA ACT of 1991. This factual and legal position is clear from a careful reading of Clauses I to IX of section 4 of the Act of 1991. ( 12 ) ON the basis of Government Orders referred to supra, Section 38 (C) (2) was inserted to the BDA Act 1976 by way of an amendment by the state Legislature in exercise of its legislative power. This amendment provision was repealed by Act No. l/2000 by the State in exercise of its constitutional power. The said repeal has been upheld by the Division Bench of this court in the case of John. B. James others referred to supra and therefore under the provisions of Article 162 of the Constitution of India the G. Os. shall continue to operate in the field until the same are cancelled by the State Government in exercise of its power under the constitution of India. ( 13 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the sites in question are purchased by the petitioners on different dates from 1992 to 1997 and they have constructed houses, obtained electricity connections. Receipts are produced for having paid property taxes and betterment charges, which fact is clear from the Commissioners report dated 15. 5. 2000. The relevant paragraphs are extracted in this order. It is clearly stated by the commissioner that constructions made upon the petitions schedule sites were demolished by the respondents particularly Tahasildar and other officers at the instance of the respondent Society. 5. 2000. The relevant paragraphs are extracted in this order. It is clearly stated by the commissioner that constructions made upon the petitions schedule sites were demolished by the respondents particularly Tahasildar and other officers at the instance of the respondent Society. It is also an undisputed fact that applications were submitted by the petitioners to the screening committee referred to in the G. O. seeking for regularization of their unauthorized occupation and construction of their respective houses upon the petitions schedule sites on the basis of either the Act of 1991 or under the Government orders referred to supra. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Society is that the rights claimed by the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court in view of Clauses I to IX of Section 4 of the Act of the Act of 1991. But the Government Orders are in force as the same were not replaced by giving effect to the amended provision, and the rights which were conferred in the orders upon the unauthorized occupants were also not repealed in the KRUCUA Act of 1991. In support of the same learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of State or Orissa reported in 1962 SC page 945, AIR 1960 ORISSA 46 in Bhupendra Kumar Vs. state of Orissa dealing with the validation of the Orissa Municipal election and ordinance lapsing after six months under the constitutional provision, invalidity of Elections in Cuttack Municipal elections was cured by it is not revived under section 6 of the General Clauses Act of 1885, law has been laid down at paragraph 23 of the said judgment. Having regard to the object or the ordinance and rights created by the validating provisions Supreme Court held that it would be difficult to accept the contentions that as soon as the ordinance expired, the validity of the election came to an end and their invalidity was revived and further held that the rights created by the ordinance must be held to endure and last in even after expiry of the ordinance. In view of the decision by the Apex Court in the above case, Section 38 (C) (2) of BDA Act was deleted by Act No. 1/2000, but the Government orders which were in force as on the date of filing applications by the petitioners continued to be in force for consideration of regularization by the steering committees constituted for that purpose, as the rights conferred upon the petitioners under the said Government orders still subsist. ( 14 ) UNDISPUTEDLY applications were filed by the petitioners before the screening committee seeking for regularization of their unauthorized occupation and construction of the houses upon the petitions schedule sites, which was permissible under the Government Orders of 1987 and 1990. Therefore still the rights of the petitioners were protected and the same were required to be determined by the screening committee. ( 15 ) IN this view of the matter, the contention of the society about suppression of dismissal of the original suits filed by the petitioners, not disclosed in these writ petitions or dismissal of the writ petitions filed by similarly placed persons before this Court, and hence these petitions are not maintainable in law, are wholly untenable in law. Legal rights are conferred upon the petitioners under the Government Orders referred to supra. The civil court or this Court had no occasion to examine and consider the rights of the petitioners with reference to the G. Os referred to supra. Therefore, this Court has to reject the legal submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the petitions are not maintainable in law. ( 16 ) THE submission of the Counsel for 7th respondent that this Court cannot exercise its extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction placing reliance upon the judgment reported in 1956 (1) MLJR 324 and other judgments of the Apex Court referred to in the earlier paragraph of this order are not applicable to the facts of this case. Further reliance placed upon Clauses I to IX of section 4 of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorized Constructions in Urban Areas Act 1991 have been carefully examined and this Court has to hold that the applications filed by the petitioners can be entertained under the provisions of the said Act as the provisions of the Act have not repealed the Government orders under which statutory rights are conferred upon the unauthorized occupants. The said Act deals only with regard to the unauthorized constructions made by parsons upon their sites/revenue sites in contravention of various Enactments, Rules and bye-laws. If constructions are made on their own sites of the petitioners, then the provisions of the said Act are applicable. In respect of the constructions made on the site/property belonging either to BDA or Government, or any other person the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to such cases. Therefore, the Government Orders of 1987 and 1990 referred to supra are applicable to the case of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the reliance placed upon the judgment of this Court and legal submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted by this Court as they are devoid of merit. Answer to Point No. 2: The petitioners are also entitled for the reliefs in these petitions in view of the undisputed fact that the applications filed by them before the screening committee of the 5th and 10th respondents or any other committee which are constituted pursuant to the above G. Os. to determine the claims of the unauthorized occupants, are required to be examined. The report of the Court Commissioner referred to supra is very clear that the petitioners have been in possession of their respective sites and constructed the buildings upon the same, which fact cannot be disputed by the contesting respondents. The said constructions have been demolished during pendency of these writ petitions at the instance of the 7th respondent- society by the 11th respondent with the active assistance of respondents 8 to 10. Therefore, the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for respondent-Society that issuance of a writ as prayed for by the petitioners in these petitions will be futile, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 783 , 1982 SC 33, 1981 SC 136 cannot be accepted as the same are wholly untenable in law having regard to the undisputed facts and the finding recorded by the Court commissioner on the basis of spot inspection of the petitions schedule properties made by him on 19. 4. 2000. In the report, he has categorically stated that the constructions made by the petitioners upon the sites were demolished by the respondents at the instance of the 7th respondent-society. 4. 2000. In the report, he has categorically stated that the constructions made by the petitioners upon the sites were demolished by the respondents at the instance of the 7th respondent-society. The Society has not obtained possession of the acquired lands, as on the date of filing these writ petitions which is evident from the orders passed by this Court in writ Petition No. 29795/99 c/w 30509/99. contempt proceedings in C. C. C. No. 1576/2000 against the respondents therein was filed for non-compliance of the order passed in the Writ Petitions. Therefore, this Court has to record a finding on the basis of the report of the Court commissioner that the petitioners have established that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the buildings constructed by them till they were illegally demolished during pendency of these petitions and therefore they have got statutory rights upon the petitions schedule sites under the Government orders referred to supra. ( 17 ) FOR the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraph wherein this Court has already held that petitioners have got every right to get their unauthorized occupation of the properties in question regularised, even though the sites belonging to either Government or B. D. A, as their occupation and constructions of the buildings upon the same is unauthorized. In this view of the matter, the stand taken by the 7th respondent and other respondents is wholly untenable in law, and the same is devoid of merit. Hence this Court cannot accept their submissions. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons stated supra, this Court has to record a finding that even though the amended Section 38 (C) (2) of the BDA Act has been repealed by Act No. l/2000, which has been upheld by the Division bench of this court in John. B. Jamess cage referred to supra, and also Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act the Government Orders were neither repealed nor cancelled by the Government in exercise of its power. Therefore, in view of the statutory rights conferred upon the petitioners pursuant to the said Government Orders, the second point formulated by this Court also requires to be answered positively in their favour. Even in case of M/s. I. T. I. EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO. OP SOCIETY LTD. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA and. ORS. in Writ Appeal Nos. Therefore, in view of the statutory rights conferred upon the petitioners pursuant to the said Government Orders, the second point formulated by this Court also requires to be answered positively in their favour. Even in case of M/s. I. T. I. EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO. OP SOCIETY LTD. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA and. ORS. in Writ Appeal Nos. 1825/1993 c/w 1826/1993 and 5700- 706/1997 c/w 5707-719/1997 disposed of on 24-10- 1997 a Division Bench of this Court held that the applications for regularization shall be considered and disposed of within the Period specified therein. The same holds good for there cases also. ( 19 ) SINCE, point Nos. l and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioners, Point No. 3 has to be answered holding that the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of John. B. James and others neither the Government nor BDA has right to evict the petitioners from the petitions schedule sites without following the due process of law. For the aforesaid reasons also the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in these petitions. ( 20 ) IN addition to the reliefs prayed by them they are also entitled either for restoration of the buildings upon their sites or damages from the concerned persons who are responsible to demolish their buildings upon the schedule properties. However, having regard to the facts of this case such relief is not awarded. Hence, this Court passes the following order. ( 21 ) THE Writ petitions are allowed. Rule issued and made absolute. A writ of Mandamus is given to the respondents 5 and 10 to consider the applications of the petitioners for regularization of their unauthorized occupation and construction, keeping in view the Government Orders 1987 and 1990. Further a writ of prohibition is issued to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners till their applications for regularization are considered and disposed of in accordance with law by the competent Regularization Steering Committee. Having regard to the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their costs of these proceedings. --- *** ---