CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THAT the father of respondents No. 4 to 8, one Sri Buddappa @ Budda Reddy had filed a declaration under Section 61 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, henceforth in brief referred to as u. L. C. Act. That the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner had taken up the declaration filed by the above said Budda Reddy and held that he was holding an extent of 14,879 sq. mts. in Sy. No. 167/4, 172/1, 172/3 of Kothnur Village, Bangalore South Taluk, as an excess land beyond the ceiling limit and he therefore ordered to acquire the same by issue of notification under Section 10 (1) of the U. L. C. Act (Henceforth for convenience referred to as 'subject land' ). ( 2 ) THAT the Respondent No. 1 - State had issued preliminary notification and final notification for acquisition of the 'subject land' situated in Sy. No. 172/3 of Kothanur Village, Bangalore South taluk for the benefit of Amar Jyothi Housing Soceity. The said notification came to be challenged before this Court in W. P. No. 26693/ 1993 and finally that litigation had gone upto the supreme Court of India in CA No. 3011/1995 ;that arose out of SLP Nos. 11482-90/1991 and in the said SLPs, the Apex Court directed the respondent No. 1 -State to restore all the lands proposed to be acquired to the respective owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of the lands or not. It was also directed by the Supreme Court in the slps that the possession of the land to the respective landowners was subject to the condition that they all shall refund the amount that they have received as compensation for the lands proposed to be acquired. ( 3 ) THAT, upon that, necessary notifications came to be issued by the respondent No. 1 - State on 10-11-1995 directing Amar Jyothi Co-operative Society to restore the subject land to the respondents No. 4 to 8 subject to their paying back the compensation received by their father buddappa Reddy @ Buddappa during his life time, by way of compensation, a sum of rs. 2,69,125/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty nine thousand one hundred and twenty five only) to the respondent No. l - State, represented by the special LAO and accordingly, respondents No. 4 to 8 had paid back the said sum to the respondent No. l - State. ( 4 ) LATER, respondents No. 4 to 8 were also put into possession of an extent of 3 acres 4 guntas of land in Survey No. 172/3 of Kothnur village and the relevant revenue records also came to be mutated showing the possessions of the land by the respondents No. 4 to 8. ( 5 ) DESPITE the above, strangely, the respondent No. l - State, had granted by way of allotment an extent of 12,545. 20 sq. mts. in Sy. No. 122/3 of Kothnur village to the petitioner - Educational trust for a price of Rs. 15,50,000/ - (Rupees fifteen lakhs fifty thousand only) and further the petitioner - Trust was put into possession of the same through the respondent No. 3- Tahsildar on 24-7-1999. ( 6 ) AGAINST the above proceedings, the respondents No. 4 to 8 herein- had filed earlier a w. P. No. 35965/99 as against the petitioner - Educational Trust before this Court to declare the proceedings in pursuance of the Government Order dt. 30-4-1985 as null, void, inoperative and non-existing in the eye of law vide Annexure - R to that Writ Petition and to quash the order dt. 9-7-1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 granting 12,545. 20 sq. mts. of land in survey No. 172/3 of Kothanur village vide Annexure - S to that Writ Petition and the order dt. 24-7-1999 by respondent No. 5 in case No. LAQ. M/s. BTL Education Trust for Rural Development, bangalore, vide Annexure - I to that Writ Petition and this Court by order dt. 23-2-2001, in the said Writ Petition. e. W. P. No. 35965/99; had ordered as follows: "18. The only questions that now arise for consideration in this Writ Petition are (i) as on the date of the Repealed Act, 1999 (15/99) whether the petitioners continued to be in lawful possession or not. (ii) if the petitioners are continued to be in lawful possession, then the proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulations) Act, 1976 shall stand abated on the refund of the money. (ii) if the petitioners are continued to be in lawful possession, then the proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulations) Act, 1976 shall stand abated on the refund of the money. Section 3 Sub-section (2) reads as follows: (2) WHERE: (a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and (b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect of such land; then such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the state Government. This indicates that if a person is in lawful possession of the land at the time when the Repealed act came into force, the proceedings under the old Act shall abate. 19. There is considerable confusion whether possession has been handed over to the State government since it is stated by the petitioners that the lands in question were handed back to the petitioners pursuant to the Orders of the Supreme Court in SLPs 13114 and 13339/91. 20. It is also submitted that since the petitioners were in possession of the land, respondents No. 3 and 4 had sought to acquire the land as per Annexure -P and final notification was issued as per Annexure - Q. The petitioners have also filed W. P. No. 26693/99 to challenge the acquisition proceedings and an interim order was issued by this Court directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land that was sought to be acquired. All this indicates that the petitioners might have been in lawful possession when the BDA sought to acquire the land in question. 21. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct respondents No. 4 and 5 to give the finding whether the possession was taken over by the State Government before the Repealed Act came into force and to determine whether the petitioners would be entitled to continue in possession if the petitioners are in lawful possession pursuant to the coming into force of the repealed Act. 22. 22. The Government Advocate was not able to pin point that possession was in fact taken by the state Government pursuant to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 23. If possession has been taken by the State there was no necessity for the BDA to issue 4 (1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act against the petitioners. This may indicate that the bda at any rate views the matter as if possession is still with the petitioners. However, the acquisition by the BDA is not before this Court in this Writ Petition. " ( 7 ) THAT in the said Writ Petition, the petitioner -Educational Trust herein was also arrayed as one of the respondents. That in obedience to the above direction of this Court, the respondent No. 2 Deputy commissioner had issued notices to both the petitioner - Educational Trust on the one side and the respondents No. 4 to 8 on the other and upon hearing both sides, the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner had passed the order now impugned in the instant Writ Petition filed by the petitioner - B. T. L. Educational Trust. ( 8 ) THE petitioner Educational Trust were mainly aggrieved because the respondent No. 2 Deputy commissioner had held that the respondents No. 4 to 8 were in lawful possession of the land in question when the Repealed Act came into force and by that observation obviously they. e. the respondents- No. 4 to 8 were made to enure to the benefit of the Repealed Act as provided under section 3 (2) of the Repealed Act and in that process, the petitioner - trust was made to loose the land that was allotted to them for a price under the Government Order dt. 9-7- 99 granting the land. In the facts and circumstances, it is natural that the petitioner - Trust had challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner in the instant Writ Petition ( 9 ) THEREFORE, the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner, copy at Annexure-C to Writ Petition is now under scrutiny of this Court in the instant Writ - Petition. ( 10 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Amar Kumar on the one side and the learned Counsel Sr. ( 10 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Amar Kumar on the one side and the learned Counsel Sr. Shanthraj appearing for the respondents No. 4 to 8 on the other and further the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3, the State and its authorities. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner - Educational Trust vehemently argued that his party was not only allotted with the land in question under the Government Order, and further more, that the petitioner - Educational Trust was also put into possession of the land pursuantly. ( 12 ) HE therefore submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed by allowing the Writ Petition, whereas the learned Counsel appearing for the other side. e, respondents No. 4 to 8, Sri Shantaraj supported the impugned order. According to him, the respondent No. 2 -Deputy Commissioner had passed a just order, that too, after hearing both the sides. He further pointedly argued that, it could not be disputed that, pursuant to the direction of the Supreme, Court in the S. L. Ps. the respondents No. 4 to 8 were put into possession of the subject land by the respondent No. 1 - State and thus, when the respondents No. 4 to 8 were in lawful possession, respondent- No. 1 - State behind their back, to negate the direction of the supreme Court, put the petitioner - Educational Trust into illegal possession upon paying the price on granting land to it under a Government Order dt. 9-7-1999 as stated above. ( 13 ) AS I see, the basic facts cannot be overlooked; firstly that as per the direction of the Supreme court, the respondent No. 1-State had put back the respondents No. 4 to 8 into possession of the land with effect from 7-7-93 vide communication No. LAC - 66/85-86 dt. 7-9-99 vide Annexure rule 6 - the objection statement of the respondents No. 4 to 8, and that was issued by the Office of the Special Land Acquisition - Officer, addressed to Budda Reddy, father of the respondents no. 4 to 8. 7-9-99 vide Annexure rule 6 - the objection statement of the respondents No. 4 to 8, and that was issued by the Office of the Special Land Acquisition - Officer, addressed to Budda Reddy, father of the respondents no. 4 to 8. ( 14 ) IF the respondents No. 4 to 8 were put into possession by the respondent No. 1 - State in obedience to the directions of the Apex Court, it is natural that the respondent No. 2 - Deputy commissioner had passed the order and held rightly and justly that the respondents No. 4 to 8 were in legal possession of the land as on the date when the Repealed Act came into force. This obviously means that the Government Order dt. 9-7-1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 -State granting the land to the petitioner Educational Trust was of no consequence. To me, it appears that had the petitioner - Educational Trust been careful enough, particularly, when the revenue records were showing the names of the respondents No. 4 to 8 in possession. According to me, had the petitioner - Trust been little careful, it was not at all difficult for it to know with regard to the fact that the respondent No. l - State had put the respondents No. 4 to 8 into possession as per the direction of the Apex Court in the SLPs. This would have as well prevented the petitioner -Educational Trust from purchasing the land for a price and further prevented it from taking possession of the land to avoid litigation of no consequence. ( 15 ) IF the respondent No. 1 - State had put the respondents No. 4 to 8 into - possession of the land in question, that too, under the direction of the Supreme Court in the S. L. Ps. as stated as above, it is unimaginable that the respondent No. 1 State had sold the very land to the petitioner Educational trust and further more, to crown the same, the respondent No. 1 - State had further put into possession of the petitioner -Educational Trust, as if, that act was in negation to the direction of the Supreme Court to put the respondents No. 4 to 8 in possession of the land. It is not out of context to say that the said act of the respondent No. l State is nothing, but an act of belligerence, thus a farce, if not, made mockery of due process of law, in the matter of settlement of disputes. ( 16 ) IN that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition stands dismissed in confirmation of the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 - Deputy commissioner. No cost. ( 17 ) HOWEVER, the petitioner - Trust is given liberty to approach the respondent No. 1 - State for getting back the money of Rs. 15. 5 lakhs the price it admittedly paid to the respondent No. 1 State. I do not think that the- respondent No. l - State will deny that to the petitioner Educational trust, since, by force of circumstances, it stands to loose the land that was sold to it under a Government Order, for, the respondent No. 1 - State cannot make illegal gain at the cost of its own citizens. ( 18 ) LET the Registry now return the records to the Government Advocate on proper acknowledgment by him for such a receipt.