Judgment : B. Manohar, J. The learned single Judge of this court has referred the matter to the Division bench for consideration on 27.01.2011, the writ petition is posted before us for hearing. 2. In this writ petition the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: (a) review the order dt 24.7.2008 in W.P.No.10054/2008 and recall the order and pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioners. (b) following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in HMT House Building Cooperative Societies case, declare that acquisition proceedings initiated in favour of NTI Society vide Notification dt 3.1.1985 bg.No.LAQ(1) 686-83 at ANNEXURE - R and the Notification dt 22.8.1986 bg.No.LAQ(1) 686-83 at ANNEXURE – S and all further proceedings pursuant to these Notifications as infructuous and direct the State Government not to initiate any action in pursuance of the acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing Sy.No.13/2A and 13/2B of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. (c) declare that the Agreement dt 31.05.2008 at ANNEXURE-Z between the 4th respondent and the BDA as is non-est made without authority of law as not binding on the petitioners land in Sy.No.13/2A and 13/2B of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Banglaore North Taluk. (d) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government to restore the land Sy.No.13/2A, 13/2B of Kodigahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, to the petitioners in the event of the land being subject to acquisition proceedings. (e) pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. The petitioners have filed a memo seeking for withdrawal of the first prayer made in the writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court on 01-02-2010 passed the following order on the said memo: “A memo has been filed by the Counsel for the petitioners seeking to withdraw the first prayer sought for by them to review the order passed on 24.7.2008 in WP No.10054/08. The question of reviewing the said order passed by me earlier does not arise, since the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.1332/2008 and other connected matters has confirmed the said order. Hence, the Memo is taken on record and the prayer sought for to review the order is dismissed as not pressed. The question of reviewing the said order passed by me earlier does not arise, since the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.1332/2008 and other connected matters has confirmed the said order. Hence, the Memo is taken on record and the prayer sought for to review the order is dismissed as not pressed. In so far as second prayer challenging the acquisition proceedings is concerned, the matter has been considered both by this court as well as by the Division Bench. However, if the petitioners want to make out any special grounds, since already a view has been taken by the Division Bench, I feel it appropriate to refer this matter to the Division Bench for consideration, as it involves intricacies. In view of the same, the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, to post the matter before the Division Bench or for some other appropriate orders.” 4. The petitioners are claiming to be the owners in possession of the residential sites formed out of Sy.Nos.13/2A and 13/2B, situated at Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The petitioners had purchased various sites from one Smt. Renuka Nambiar in the year 2002. The said Renuka Nambiar purchased the land bearing Sy.No.13/2A measuring 1 acre 37 guntas and Sy.No.13/2B measuring 1 acre 4 guntas on 18-3-1986 from Annaiappa and Narayanappa and formed the sites. The petitioners had purchased the said sites under registered sale deeds in the year 2002. Thereafter, they obtained katha in respect of the said sites from Byatarayanapura Nagara Sabha. They had paid property tax, betterment charges and they obtained the building plan and constructed the residential buildings. They have also obtained power, water and telephone connections from the respective departments and were residing therein. 5. In the writ petition, the petitioners have contended that on 22-8-2008, the 4th respondent published a notification in the local newspaper stating that the State Government acquired 178.38 acres of land situated at Kodigehalli, Kotihosahalli and Byatarayanapura village in favour of the 4th respondent-Society. Notification under Section 16(2) was published in the year 1991, 1992 and 13-6-2002 for 178.38 acres of land. The BDA had approved the modified layout plan known as “RAJIV GANDHI NAGARA” and the sites formed in the layout had been allotted to the members, katha had been issued in favour of many of the members. Notification under Section 16(2) was published in the year 1991, 1992 and 13-6-2002 for 178.38 acres of land. The BDA had approved the modified layout plan known as “RAJIV GANDHI NAGARA” and the sites formed in the layout had been allotted to the members, katha had been issued in favour of many of the members. However, some anti-social elements are trying to encroach upon the said land. In the notification, the publics are warned not to purchase land acquired for the 4th respondent. The petitioners contended that they came to know that the land bearing Sy.Nos. 13/2A and 13/2B were acquired by the State Government and preliminary notification has been issued on 3-1-1985 and the same was gazette on 4-1-1985 for acquiring 322 acres of the land situated at all the three villages referred to above. Thereafter, after holding necessary enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, the final notification was issued on 22-9-1986 to an extent of 210 acres. The consent award has been passed in respect of various items of the land including the land bearing Sy.No.13/2A and 13/2B on 31-1-1989. The landlords have not objected for acquisition of the said land. Thereafter, compensation has been paid and possession of the major extent of the land including the lands in dispute were taken by the state Government and 16(2) notification was issued on 12-4-1991 and 4-11-1992. However, an extent of 171 acres of the land was handed over to the 4th respondent-society. 6. The petitioners further contended that though 16(2) notification was issued in respect of the lands in question, the actual possession has not been taken. Petitioners are the bonafide purchasers of the land in the year 2002 and they had constructed the houses and residing therein. They have further contended that though the land has been acquired about 25 years back, no layout has been formed and the scheme itself is lapsed. Petitioners further allege that the 4th respondent has not submitted any scheme under Section 3(f) (vi) of the Land Acquisition Act for approval, whereas the approval of the scheme is the condition precedent for acquisition of the land. Petitioners further allege that the 4th respondent has not submitted any scheme under Section 3(f) (vi) of the Land Acquisition Act for approval, whereas the approval of the scheme is the condition precedent for acquisition of the land. Further, G.V.K. Rao Committee was appointed by the State Government to enquire into the affairs of the Cooperative Society and the Committee has given a report stating that the 4th respondent society has enrolled large number of bogus members and exorbitant amount has been paid to the agents for formation of the layout and middleman has been appointed. While dealing with the similar matters, in which the acquisition proceedings relating to the similar societies were questioned, this Court in NARAYANA REDDY v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2248 had quashed the acquisition proceedings. Being aggrieved by the same, HMT House Building Co-operative Society and other similarly situated societies went up to the Supreme Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1995) 2 SCC 677 in the case of HMT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY V/S SYED KHADER upheld the order passed by this Court and quashed the acquisition proceedings directing the State Government to restore the possession of the lands to its original owners. The petitioners have contended that the 4th respondent-Society is also similarly placed and the acquisition proceedings initiated in favour of the 4th respondent is liable to be quashed. 7. Further, the petitioners have contended that the 4th respondent filed W.P.No.10054/1998 before this Court seeking for direction to the Bangalore Development Authority (`BDA’ for short) to issue work order and to sanction the modified plan to an extent of 161.08 acres as per the resolution dated 13-5-2008. The 4th respondent further contended that they have already executed relinquishment deed relinquishing civic amenity sites, park and roads. Inspite of executing relinquishment deed, the BDA has not released 60% sites. 8. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition on 29-7-2008 directing the BDA to release 60% of total sites in favour of the 4th respondent and also observed that the BDA shall adopt extra judicial method to evict the encroachers of civic amenity sites. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, some of the landowners filed W.ANo.1332/2008 and other connected writ appeals. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, some of the landowners filed W.ANo.1332/2008 and other connected writ appeals. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 22-9-2009 dismissed the said writ appeals with certain observations. In view of that the petitioners did not press the first prayer. Hence, sought for quashing the preliminary notification as well as the final notification and also to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated in favour of 4th respondent as having become infructuous and become void ab initio and sought for allowing the writ petition. 9. Sri.R.V. Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent filed detailed statement of objections and contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. The petitioners have purchased the sites in the year 2002 whereas the preliminary notification was issued on 3-1-1985 and final notification was issued on 22-8-1986. The consent award has been passed during 1989. The owners of the lands bearing Sy.No.13/2A and 13/2B have not filed any objections to the preliminary or final notifications. The consent award was passed. The award amount has been paid to the owners and possession has been taken in the year 1989. 16(2) notification was also issued on 12-4-1991 and 4-1-1992. In view of the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the subsequent purchaser cannot file writ petition challenging the preliminary and final notification issued by the State Government. Further, there is delay of more than 23 years in approaching this Court challenging the notifications. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on ground of delay and laches. Elaborating his contention, learned counsel contended that the possession of the disputed lands was taken by the State Government and thereafter, handed over to the 4th respondent and layout has already been formed. Some of the land owners, filed writ petition challenging the preliminary and final notifications issued by the State Government in W.P.No.37086/1996 and W.P.No.5775/1996 before this Court. However, this court dismissed the writ petitions. Thereafter W.A.No.8181/1996 and W.A.Nos. 7633-34/1996 were also filed wherein specific contentions were taken that the society has registered large number bogus members; appointed middleman and exorbitant amount has been paid to the middleman to influence the State Government for acquisition of the lands. However, this court dismissed the writ petitions. Thereafter W.A.No.8181/1996 and W.A.Nos. 7633-34/1996 were also filed wherein specific contentions were taken that the society has registered large number bogus members; appointed middleman and exorbitant amount has been paid to the middleman to influence the State Government for acquisition of the lands. This Court examined the contentions raised by the appellants and negatived the same and dismissed the writ appeals on 24-3-1998. Thereafter, the Association of the land owners filed a writ petition by way of public interest litigation before this Court. This Court by its order dated 11-1-1999 dismissed the said writ petition. Thereafter, one more writ petition in W.P.No.13622/2005 was filed alleging that 10 acres of the land acquired for the benefit of the 4th respondent has been sold for Rs.10.00 Crores and the 4th respondent is making money out of acquisitions and the acquisition is not for public purpose. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved by the same, W.A.No.1480/2006 and other connected writ appeals were filed. Further, in the said writ appeals, an application was also filed raising additional grounds that GVK Rao Committee has pointed out serious irregularities and huge amount has been paid to the middleman to influence the State Government for acquisition of the lands. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 18-3-2010 dismissed the said writ appeals. Being aggrieved by the same, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.22575 & 22576/2010 have been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said petitions as withdrawn with liberty to seek intervention in the pending matters. Inspite of the same, writ petitions have been filed challenging the acquisition proceedings on very same contentions. Hence the writ petition filed by the petitioners suffers from constructive res-judicata and the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition. Further, against the order made in W.P.No.10054/2008 some of the land owners filed W.A.No.1332/2008 and BDA also filed W.A.No.1485/2008. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed both the writ appeals. Hence, it is not open to the petitioners to re-agitate the matter and sought for dismissal of the petition. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (2008) 4 SCC 695 (SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed both the writ appeals. Hence, it is not open to the petitioners to re-agitate the matter and sought for dismissal of the petition. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (2008) 4 SCC 695 (SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER V/S. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS) (1996) 6 SCC 445 (PARA 10) (STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS v/s D.R. LAXMI AND OTHERS) (1998) 4 SCC 387 (PARA 21) (LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS) • AIR 1986 SC 391 (FORWARD CONSTRUCTION CO. AND OTHERS v/s PRABHAT MANDAL (REGD) ANDHERI AND OTHERS) 2008 (9) SCC 177 (MEERA SAHNI v/s LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND OTHERS) 2010 AIR SCW 16 (R. KOLANDAIVELU AND OTHERS v/s GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER.) AIR 2010 SC 433 (SHANTHI SPORTS CLUB AND ANOTHER v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OHTERS) 10. The learned Additional Government Advocate argued in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The records produced by the parties clearly disclose that the State Government issued preliminary notification on 3-1-1985 for acquiring 322 acres of land for the benefit of the 4th respondent –Society. After holding an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, final notification was issued on 22-9-1986 acquiring 210 acres of the land. The consent award has been passed on 31-1-1989 in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos. 13/2A measuring 1 acres 37 guntas and 13/2B measuring 1 acre 4 guntas. The compensation has also been paid to the land owners. The State Government had taken possession of the said land and handed over to the 4th respondent –Society. 16(2) notification was issued on 12-4-1991 and 11-4-1992. Acquisition of the land for the benefit of the 4th respondent society has been questioned in W.P.No.37086/1996 and W.P.No.5775/1996 before this Court, which were dismissed by this Court. Being Aggrieved by the same, W.A.No.8181/1996 and W.A.Nos. 7633-34/1996 were filed. In the said writ appeals, the contention has been taken regarding the payment of the huge amount to the middleman and also GVK Rao report alleging that large number of bogus persons have been enrolled though they were not the members of the 4th respondent-Society. The said writ appeals were dismissed on 24-3-1998. 7633-34/1996 were filed. In the said writ appeals, the contention has been taken regarding the payment of the huge amount to the middleman and also GVK Rao report alleging that large number of bogus persons have been enrolled though they were not the members of the 4th respondent-Society. The said writ appeals were dismissed on 24-3-1998. Thereafter, the Land Owners’ Association filed writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. The said writ petition was also dismissed on 11-1-1999. Thereafter, one more writ petition was filed by way of Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.24386 / 1999 by one Srinivasa Raju, claiming to be the Social Worker in order to protect the interest of the poor farmers. Even in that writ petition, a contention was taken regarding the observations made in the GVK Rao Committee report regarding appointment of middleman was also taken and the Division bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition on 29-9-2000 with cost of Rs.1,500/-. Thereafter, W.P.No.13622/2005 and W.P.No.15736/2006 were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings and also sale of 10 acres of land in favour of M/.s. SBG Housing Private Limited Company. The said writ petitions have been dismissed on 16-8-2006 and 31-5-2007. Being aggrieved by the said orders, W.A.No.1480/2006 and W.a.No.2204/2007 were filed. In the said writ appeals, some of the land owners who were not petitioners filed W.A.Nos.755-756/2010. In the said writ appeals, the specific contention of appointment of the middleman and also the deficiency pointed out by the GVK Rao Committee was highlighted. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 18-3-2010 dismissed the said writ appeals. Being aggrieved by the same, the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 22574-576/2010 were filed which came to be dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, it is clear that the writ petitions filed by the land owners challenging the acquisition proceedings ended in dismissal before this Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the Society has also filed some writ petitions challenging illegal demand made by the BDA regarding Cauvery Water Supply, Ring Road and other charges. In order to pay the huge amount due to the BDA, 10 acres of land was permitted to be sold. The permission granted by the State Government was also upheld by this Court. Further, the Society has also filed some writ petitions challenging illegal demand made by the BDA regarding Cauvery Water Supply, Ring Road and other charges. In order to pay the huge amount due to the BDA, 10 acres of land was permitted to be sold. The permission granted by the State Government was also upheld by this Court. Thereafter, the Society filed W.P.No.10054/2008 seeking for sanction of the layout plan and to issue modified plan to an extent of 161.08 acres and to issue work order. Further, the 4th respondent contended that inspite of furnishing the relinquishment deed surrendering the open space, park and roads, the BDA has failed to release 60% of the total sites. This Court, after examining the matter in detail by its order dated 29-7-2008 issued directions of the BDA to issue modified plan and release 60% of the total sites and also to issue work order. Thereafter, public notice was issued by the 4th respondent. 13. The land bearing Sy.Nos. 13/2A and 13/2B were acquired and landlords had not filed any objections to the same and consent award was also passed, possession has been taken by the BDA and 16(2) notification was also issued. Thereafter, Annaiappa and Narayanappa, sons of Dasappa who is the owner of the said land sold the said land in favour of the Smt. Renuka Nambiar on 18-3-1996. Smt. Renuka Nambiar in turn sold the sites in favour of the petitioners in the year 2002. Admittedly, the petitioners have purchased the land long after the acquisition of the said land. Further, the 4th respondent Society also issued public notice notifying the general public regarding acquisition of the lands in the local newspaper and dealing of the land acquired in favour of the 4th respondent. Inspite of the same, the land which was acquired by the State Government has been purchased by Smt. Renuka Nambiar and sold to the petitioners. The petitioners have purchased the said sites obtaining the plan from Byatarayanapura Nagara Sabha and constructed the buildings, which is contrary to law. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10054/2008 directing the BDA to hand over the land to the 4th respondent –Society, the petitioners filed the writ petition seeking for reviewing the order made in W.P.No. 10054/2008. Subsequently, they had given up the said prayer. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10054/2008 directing the BDA to hand over the land to the 4th respondent –Society, the petitioners filed the writ petition seeking for reviewing the order made in W.P.No. 10054/2008. Subsequently, they had given up the said prayer. The other contentions raised by the petitioners are fully covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the issue has already been settled by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners cannot file one more writ petition alleging the very same contention which was already concluded by the earlier judgments. The contention raised by the petitioners is hit by constructive res-judicata and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in 2008(9) SCC 177 ; AIR 2006 SCW 689 AND AIR 2010 SC 433 cited supra clearly held that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. 14. Further, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. Admittedly, the preliminary notification was issued in the year 1985, final notification was issued in 1986; consent award has been passed in 1989 and possession has been taken and handed over to the Society itself. 16(2) notification was issued in the years 1991 and 1992. The petitioners filed the present writ petition in the year 2008 pretending that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings. 16(2) notification regarding taking possession of the land has been published in the years 1991 and 1992. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in 2008 (4) SCC 695 ; 1996 (6) SCC 445 ; 1998 (4) SCC 387 , 1996 (11) SCC 501 held that: “It is thus well-settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third-party were created in the case is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.” 15. In the instant case, after lapse of 23 years, the petitioners cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners in HMT House Building Co-operative Society V/S Syed Khader is not applicable to the facts of this case. No material has been produced to show the appointment of middleman and he was not made party to the proceeding. The very same issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court and negatived the same. Hence, it is not open to the petitioners to reagitate the matter, which is already concluded. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 433 (SHANTHI SPORTS CLUB AND ANOTHER v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS) held that “Purchasers coming in possession of land more than 10 years after finalization of acquisition proceedings. Appellant purchasers cannot plead equity and seek Court’s intervention for protection of unauthorized constructions raised by them. Purchasers cannot demand withdrawal from acquisition. Transferee of acquired land can, at best, step into shoes of land-owner and lodge claim for compensation.” Further in a judgment reported in 1996(3) SCC 124 in the case of U.P.JAL NIGAM V/S KALVA PROPERTIES (P) LTD., Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “It is well settled law that after the Notification under Section 4(1) is published in the Gazette any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Government and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property”. 16. We find that there is no merit in any of the contentions raised in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.