S. R. NAYAK, J. ,, J. ( 1 ) THE BTL Education Trust which is the petitioner in W. P. No. 19739 of 2002 being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26th July, 2004 passed in W. P. No. 19739 of 2002 (B. T. L. Education trust, Bangalore v State of Karnataka, 2004 (6) Kar. L. J. 23 : ILR 2004 kar. 4036) has preferred this appeal. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows.- the father of the respondents 4 to 8, late Buddappa alias Budda reddy of Kothanur Village had filed declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act') before the second respondent in the year 1976. After verification of the said declaration, the second respondent issued a preliminary notification under Section 10 (1) and thereafter passed an order under Section 10 (3) of the Act holding that the said Budda Reddy was holding excess land to an extent of 14,879 sq. mtrs. In Sy. Nos. 167/4, 172/1 and 172/3 of kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Budda reddy passed away on 21-8-1988. The Government of Karnataka, the first respondent herein, vide their Order No. HUD 57 BEM. SA. VI. 97, dated 9-7-1999 passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 23 of the Act granted an extent of 12,545. 20 sq. mtrs. of land in Sy. No. 172/3 of Kothanur Village which extent of land (hereinafter is referred to as 'the subject land'), in favour of the appellant-Trust. The respondents 4 to 8 being aggrieved by the said order of the Government of Karnataka preferred Writ Petition No. 35965 of 1999 to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. of land in Sy. No. 172/3 of Kothanur Village which extent of land (hereinafter is referred to as 'the subject land'), in favour of the appellant-Trust. The respondents 4 to 8 being aggrieved by the said order of the Government of Karnataka preferred Writ Petition No. 35965 of 1999 to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge of this Court who heard W. P. No. 35965 of 1999 for final disposal, having found that there was no satisfactory evidence to show whether the appellant or the respondents 4 to 8 was/were in lawful possession of the subject land as on the date the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act No. 15 of 1999) (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the Repeal Act'), came into force, allowed the writ petition on 23rd February, 2001 and set aside the impugned grant order dated 9-7-1999 and directed the second respondent to find out whether respondents 4 to 8 were in lawful possession of the subject land when the Repeal Act came into force. As directed by the learned Single Judge, the second respondent took up the matter for inquiry in Case No. ULC (13)92/91-92 and after hearing the appellant and the respondents 4 to 8 passed an order on 28-2-2002 holding that the respondents 4 to 8 were in lawful possession of the subject land and, therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the Repeal Act, the proceedings initiated and orders made under the Act abated. ( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, the Government of Karnataka had issued preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) and Final Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the LA Act'), for acquisition of the subject land comprised in Sy. No. 172/3 and other Sy. Nos. of Kothanur Village for the benefit of one Amar Jyothi House building Co-operative Society. The acquisition proceedings were challenged before this Court in W. P. No. 26693 of 1993 and that litigation ultimately landed before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3011 of 1995 (SLP Nos. 11482 to 11490 of 1991 ). In the said civil appeal, the Apex Court directed the State Government to restore all the lands proposed to be acquired to the respective landowners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of the lands or not. 11482 to 11490 of 1991 ). In the said civil appeal, the Apex Court directed the State Government to restore all the lands proposed to be acquired to the respective landowners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of the lands or not. The supreme Court further directed that the restoration of the possession of the land to the respective landowners was subject to the condition that they should refund the amount of compensation received by them for the lands proposed to be acquired. The pursuance of the direction of the apex Court, the State Government issued notification on 10-11-1985 directing Amar Jyothi House Building Co-operative Society to restore the subject land to the respondents 4 to 8 subject to their paying back the compensation received by their late father Budda Reddy during his lifetime, by way of compensation, i. e. , a sum of Rs. 2,69,125/- to the State government and, accordingly, respondents 4 to 8 had paid back the said sum to the State Government. On refund of the compensation money by the respondents 4 to 8, respondents 4 to 8 were put in possession of 3 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy. No. 172/3 of Kothanur Village and the relevant revenue records came to be mutated showing the possession of the subject land by the respondents 4 to 8. ( 4 ) WHEN the matter stood thus, the appellant-Trust being aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated 28-2-2002 preferred W. P. No. 19739 of 2002 praying for the following reliefs:"wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to.- (a) issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-C the order dated 28th February, 2002 passed in No. ULC (13)92/91-92 by the Deputy Commissioner, bangalore District-respondent 2; (b) declare that the petitioner-Trust is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy. No. 172/3 measuring 12,545. 20 sq. mtrs. situated in Kothanur Village, bangalore South Taluk; (c) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity". No. 172/3 measuring 12,545. 20 sq. mtrs. situated in Kothanur Village, bangalore South Taluk; (c) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity". ( 5 ) IN the writ petition, on behalf of the appellant-Trust, it was contended that since the subject land vested in the State Government by virtue of the proceedings initiated under the Act, the question of the subject land being handed over to Budda Reddy or his legal representatives in pursuance of the orders of the Supreme Court did not arise and with the vesting of the subject land in the State Government, late Budda Reddy had lost interest, right and title over the subject land. It was contended that the proceedings initiated by the State government under the LA Act or the proceedings initiated by the State government under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, were wholly inconsequential inasmuch as the subject land had already vested in the Government by virtue of the proceedings initiated under the Act. The finding of the Deputy Commissioner that as on the date of the Repeal Act, the respondents 4 to 8 were in lawful possession was also disputed by the appellant-Trust. ( 6 ) THE writ petition was opposed by the respondents 1 to 3 as well as respondents 4 to 8 by filing a detailed but separate statement of objections. The learned Single Judge having considered the contentions of the parties, having noticed that the respondents 4 to 8 were put in possession of the subject land well-before the date on which the Repeal act came into force by the State Government itself in pursuance of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3011 of 1995 dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner. Hence, this writ appeal by the aggrieved BTL Education Trust. ( 7 ) WE have heard Sri T. S. Amar Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri S. Prakash Shetty, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri T. Tharesh, learned Counsel for the respondents 4 to 8. Hence, this writ appeal by the aggrieved BTL Education Trust. ( 7 ) WE have heard Sri T. S. Amar Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri S. Prakash Shetty, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri T. Tharesh, learned Counsel for the respondents 4 to 8. Sri Amar Kumar would contend that the finding of the second respondent that the respondents 4 to 8 were put in lawful possession of the subject land in pursuance of the order of the Supreme court and, therefore, they were in lawful possession of the subject land on the date the Repeal Act came into force could not be sustained inasmuch as putting the respondents 4 to 8 into possession of the subject land did not arise having regard to the proceedings initiated under the Act. Sri Amar Kumar would place reliance on Annexure-D produced at page 60 and Annexure-R8 produced at page 96 of the material papers to show that the subject lands had vested in the State government under the Act well-before the Repeal Act came into -force. Sri Amar Kumar would contend that the claim of the respondents 4 to 8 that they were put in possession of the subject land on 6-8-1999 could not be believed, because, the Deputy Commissioner had held that the compensation amount had been repaid by late Budda Reddy through a dd dated 6-6-1998 drawn on Canara Bank as reflected in the Gazette notification marked as Annexure-R6, dated 7-9-1999. The reasoning of the learned Counsel is that if the Gazette Notification was issued on 7-9-1999, handing over the possession of the subject land to respondents 4 to 8 with a retrospective date like 6-6-1998 would not arise. In other words, according to the learned Counsel the date of handing over of the possession would be a date posterior to the date of the notification, i. e. , 7-9-1999 and not a date which is anterior to the date of the Gazette notification. ( 8 ) SRI Tharesh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 8 and Sri S. Prakash Shetty, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State authorities would support the order of the Deputy commissioner as well as the order of the learned Single Judge. ( 8 ) SRI Tharesh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 8 and Sri S. Prakash Shetty, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State authorities would support the order of the Deputy commissioner as well as the order of the learned Single Judge. Sri tharesh would contend that the possession of the subject land after the conclusion of the proceedings under the Act was not taken over by the state Government on 26-10-1988 as claimed by the Competent authority. In other words, according to Sri Tharesh, the possession of the subject land always remained with the late Budda Reddy and subsequently with the respondents 4 to 8 after his demise notwithstanding the initiation of the proceedings under the Act, LA Act and BDA Act. In support of this submission, Sri Tharesh would place strong reliance on the statement made by the Deputy Commissioner in his letter dated 28th February, 2002. In the said order, it is true, the deputy Commissioner who is the Competent Authority, in a categorical term, has stated that the Competent Authority has not taken over possession of the subject land in pursuance of the proceedings initiated under the Act. This finding is recorded by the Deputy Commissioner after perusing the relevant records. In fact, by recording the above finding, the Competent Authority has contested the correctness of the statement earlier made by the Deputy Commissioner (Urban Land ceiling) in his letter dated 3-9-1997 that the possession of the subject land was taken over on 21-10-1988. Sri Tharesh would also point out that late Budda Reddy died on 21-8-1988 and his death was registered on 30-8-1988 as per Annexure-R1 produced at page 79 of the material papers. Therefore, Sri Tharesh would contend, the Competent Authority taking over the possession of the subject land on 26-10-1988 in pursuance of the proceedings initiated under the Act from Budda Reddy would not have arisen, because, Budda Reddy died well-before 26-10-1988. In that view of the matter, Sri Tharesh would maintain that the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order dated 28th February, 2002 that the Competent Authority did not take over possession of the subject land in pursuance of the proceedings initiated under the Act is well-founded. In that view of the matter, Sri Tharesh would maintain that the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order dated 28th February, 2002 that the Competent Authority did not take over possession of the subject land in pursuance of the proceedings initiated under the Act is well-founded. The Deputy Commissioner in the same order has also recorded the finding that there is nothing on record to show that the possession of the subject land was handed over by the respondents 4 to 8 or their father to Government in pursuance of the order of the Competent Authority under Section 10 of the Act nor the Government has taken over the possession of the subject land from the respondents 4 to 8 or their father. Sri Tharesh would also refer to the entries in the RTC of the subject land produced at pages 98 of the material papers. As per Annexure-R9, RTC produced at page 98, the name of Budda Reddy is shown in the cultivator column even for the revenue years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Sri Tharesh would also place reliance on the tax paid receipts produced at pages 114 to 123 in support of the claim of the respondents 4 to 8 that they were in lawful possession of the subject land as on the date the Repeal Act came into force. Furthermore, Sri Tharesh would contend that when the subject land was sought to be acquired under the BDA Act by issuing preliminary notification under Section 17 (1) of the said Act in the year 1988 and final notification under Section 19 (1) in the year 1999, only respondents 4 to 8 challenged those notifications and the appellant-Trust did not challenge the same. Those notifications are quashed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 2161 of 2001 vide its order dated 21-3-2005. Learned Government Advocate, while supplementing the above contentions urged by Sri Tharesh would point out that the grant order dated 9-7-1999 made in favour of the appellant-Trust was quashed by this Court in W. P. No. 35965 of 1999 vide order dated 23-2-2001 and that order has become final and, therefore, the appellant-Trust is not entitled to make any grievance with regard to the subject land, because, it has no subsisting interest, right or title in the subject land. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties, the only points that now arise for consideration in this writ appeal are (i) as on the date of the Repeal Act, whether respondents 4 to 8 continued to be in lawful possession of the subject land or not; and (ii) if the respondents 4 to 8 were continued to be in lawful possession of the subject land, then, whether the proceedings initiated against the respondents 4 to 8 under the Act shall stand abated on the refund of the money by virtue of the provisions of the Repeal Act. ( 10 ) BEFORE dealing with the above questions, the point raised by the learned Government Advocate that since the appellant-Trust has allowed the order made by this Court on 23-2-2001 in W. P. No. 35965 of 1999 to become final, it cannot have any grievance against the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28-2-2002 impugned in the writ petition needs to be addressed by us. We have perused the order made by this Court dated 23-2-2001 in W. P. No. 36965 of 1999. In the said writ petition filed by the respondents 4 to 8, the "order of the government of Karnataka dated 9-7-1999 granting 12,545. 20 sq. mtrs. of land in Sy. No. 172/3 of Kothanur Village was also challenged. This court quashed that order while remanding the proceedings to the second respondent. That order was allowed to become final and, admittedly, the appellant-Trust did not challenge that order. If the very grant order made in favour of the appellant-Trust is quashed by this court by issuing writ of certiorari, we are at a loss to understand what is the subsisting legal right of the appellant-Trust to make any grievance against the restoration of the subject land to the respondents 4 to 8 in pursuance of the direction issued by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3011 of 1995. The right and interest claimed by the appellant-Trust are traceable to the grant order dated 9-7-1999 and if that order does not exist in the eye of law, the right and interest claimed by the appellant-Trust should also vanish by virtue of quashing of the grant order by this Court. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate is well-founded and deserves our acceptance. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate is well-founded and deserves our acceptance. ( 11 ) BE that as it may, on merit too, we do not find any case for the appellant-Trust to succeed in this writ appeal. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act 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 authorised 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 to such land, then, such land shall not restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government". ( 12 ) IF a declarant was in lawful possession of a land at the time when the Repeal Act came into force, the proceedings initiated under the Act against him would abate by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Repeal Act. In the instant case, there is abundant relevant materials on record to conclude that when the Repeal Act came into force, the respondents 4 to 8 were in actual and lawful possession of the subject land. Even according to the second respondent, though after the notification under sub-section (8) of Section 10 of the Act was issued and late Budda Reddy was directed to deliver possession of the subject land within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the records maintained by the second respondent-Competent Authority would not show that as a matter of fact, the possession of the subject land was taken over by the Competent Authority and the same vested in the state Government. In fact, the above finding recorded by the second respondent in his order dated 28th February, 2002 directly contest the correctness of the statement made by the Special Deputy Commissioner earlier that the possession of the subject land was taken over on 21-10-1988. In fact, the above finding recorded by the second respondent in his order dated 28th February, 2002 directly contest the correctness of the statement made by the Special Deputy Commissioner earlier that the possession of the subject land was taken over on 21-10-1988. The Deputy Commissioner in the same order dated 28th february, 2002 having referred to the report of the Tahsildar, Bangalore south Taluk dated 13-6-2001, has recorded the finding that there is nothing on record to show that the possession of the subject land was handed over by respondents 4 to 8 to Government pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority under the Act in terms of Section 10 of the Act nor is there any evidence to show that the government has taken over possession of the subject land from respondents 4 to 8. However, we need not rest our opinion only on the above findings recorded by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 28th February, 2002. There are other independent materials also to reach the same conclusion. Although earlier the Special deputy Commissioner for Urban Land Ceiling had claimed that the possession of the subject land was taken over on 21-10-1988, that claim seems to be highly incredible. We say this, because, Budda Reddy died on 21-8-1988. Therefore, taking over the possession of the subject land from a dead person on 21-10-1988 would not have arisen. It is not the case of the Competent Authority that before taking over possession of the subject land on 21-10-1988, notices were issued to the respondents 4 to 8 herein and possession of the subject land was taken over from them. The second circumstance which goes in favour of respondents 4 to 8 is the entries in the record of rights and pahanis of the subject land. In the rtc extracts produced at page 98 of the material papers, the name of budda Reddy is shown both in column (9) as well as in column (12) for the revenue years 1997-98 and 1998-99. In the rtc extracts produced at page 98 of the material papers, the name of budda Reddy is shown both in column (9) as well as in column (12) for the revenue years 1997-98 and 1998-99. It is true that well-before the above revenue years commenced, Budda Reddy had died, but, the fact remains that if the possession of the subject land was taken over on 21-10-1988 itself by the Competent Authority as claimed, the name of budda Reddy or his sons would not have appeared in the record of rights and pahanies of the subject land subsequent to the revenue year 1988-89. The third circumstance is the house tax paid receipts produced at pages 114-123 of the material papers. These house tax paid receipts would also go to show that the respondents 4 to 8 were in possession of the subject land before and after the Repeal Act came into force. Thus, it is quite clear that not only the findings recorded by the second respondent in his order dated 28th February, 2002 but also the above noted documents would fully support the claim of the respondents 4 to 8 that they were in lawful possession of the subject land when the Repeal act came into force. In addition, in pursuance of the order of the supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3011 of 1995, the possession of the subject land was restored to the respondents 4 to 8 on 6-8-1998, that is to say, well-before the Repeal Act came into force with effect from 8-7-1999. Furthermore, it needs to be noticed that in paragraph 5 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 in W. P. No. 19739 of 2002 (B. T. L. Education Trust, Bangalore v State of karnataka), it is stated that all the proceedings with regard to handing over of the possession of the subject land to the appellant-Trust was only on paper and no physical possession of the subject land was handed over to the appellant-Trust. The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk who inspected the subject land on 2-6-2001 along with field staff and the surveyor has reported that the landowners, i. e. , respondents 4 to 8 were in physical possession of the subject land. The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk who inspected the subject land on 2-6-2001 along with field staff and the surveyor has reported that the landowners, i. e. , respondents 4 to 8 were in physical possession of the subject land. The pieces of evidence noticed above individually and collectively would fully support the claim of the respondents 4 to 8 that they were in actual and lawful possession of the subject land when the Repeal Act came into force. If that is so, the proceedings initiated and orders made under the Act abated when the repeal Act came into force. ( 13 ) SRI T. S. Amarkumar submitted that in the event of this Court dismissing the writ appeal, the Court be pleased to direct the official respondents to refund the money paid by the appellant-Trust for an extent of 12,545. 20 sq. mtrs. of land with reasonable interest. Sri T. S. Amarkumar would submit that it is fair and just that the official respondents should be directed to pay reasonable interest, because, the appellant-Trust is denied of the land and it was also denied of its hard earned money for number of years. On this request, we heard the learned Government Advocate. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the appellant-Trust is not entitled to interest, because, the government was all along willing to pay the money paid by the appellant-Trust towards the value of the 12,545. 20 sq. mtrs. of land granted to the Trust but the appellant-Trust did not come forward to receive the money at any point of time and on the other hand, it has been unnecessarily litigating all these years. It was pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that though the Government Order dated 9-7-1999 granting 12,545. 20 sq. mtrs. of land in favour of the appellant-Trust was quashed by this Court by its order dated 23-2-2001 in W. P. No. 35965 of 1999 and that order was allowed to become final, the appellant-Trust did not demand for refund of the sital value at any point of time after 23-2-2001 till date. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties on the above request of Sri T. S. Amarkumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where we should award interest. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties on the above request of Sri T. S. Amarkumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where we should award interest. It is not the case of the appellant that at any point of time either before or after 23-2-2001, it demanded for refund of the money paid by it to the Government towards the value of 12,545. 20 sq. mtrs. of land. We would have considered the request of the appellant for interest favourably if the appellant-Trust were to demand refund of the money and notwithstanding such demand, the State Government and its authorities refused to refund the money. That is not the case of the appellant. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and it is accordingly, dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. --- *** ---