Judgment :- 1. These two batch of writ appeals are filed by two sets of persons challenging the acquisition of approximately an extent of about 60 acres of land under various survey numbers situated in Devarachikkanahalli and Bilekanahalli Villages, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District. The appellants in W.A.Nos.4772-800/2011 were petitioners before the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.40150-167/2002 and W.P.Nos.41771-792/2002. They are land owners of various survey numbers of Devarachikkanahalli and Bilekanahalli Village. They filed aforesaid writ petitions through their General Power of Attorney Holder, namely, the Managing Director and Executive Director of M/s. Addi Housing and Industries Private Limited, who had subsequently acquired interest in the said lands. The petitions in W.P.Nos.40150-167/2002 and W.P.Nos.41771-792/2002 were disposed off by common order dated 10.4.2003. The said common order was also passed in respect of another set of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.31726-727/2002. However, petitioners in the said batch have not challenged the order of dismissal of said petitions. 2. So far as appellants in W.A.No.263/2008 and 5137-5197/2011 are subsequent purchasers of sites formed in aforesaid survey numbers by M/s. Addi Housing and Industrial Limited by securing Power of Attorney through the land owners, namely, the appellants in the other batch of appeals. In both batch of writ petitions the challenge is to preliminary and final notifications respectively dated 6.8.1988 and 3.11.1990 for acquisition of the lands in question. 3. The fact that a large extent of land was notified under Section 17 of the BDA Act vide preliminary notification dated 6.8.1988 Gazetted on 15.12.1988 in respect of lands situated in Devarachikkanahalli and Bilekanahalli villages for formation of BTM IV stage layout of BDA is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, final notification was issued to a lesser extent of land on 3.11.1990 which was Gazetted on 20.11.1990. Thereafter, possession of said lands were taken from time to time under the relevant provisions of the BDA Act is also not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that subsequent to the issuance of final notification, the Power of Attorney Holders of appellants/land lords, namely, M/s. Addi Housing and Industrial Ltd., and its Directors entered into an agreement with the land owners for purchase of nearly an extent of 60 acres of land which were under acquisition for formation of a private layout thereon. In that behalf, they secured the General Power of Attorney from said land owners during the period 1992-94 i.e., subsequent to preliminary and final notifications being issued for acquisition of the lands in question. 4. Thereafter, it is stated that aforesaid company formed a layout thereon. It also formulated a scheme for sale of sites formed on the aforesaid lands i.e., by registering prospective purchasers as members of the said company and by receiving the value of the site from each one of them in 30 installments at Rs.5,000/-p.m., sold the sites formed therein to the appellants in the second batch of writ appeals and others. 5. It is further not in dispute that the company, namely, M/s. Addi Housing and Industrial Limited was aware of the acquisition proceedings of the lands in question and preliminary and final notification being issued way back in 1988 and 1990 itself. The records also disclose that several attempts were made by them by approaching the Government to seek denotification of the aforesaid lands. It is also not in dispute that several orders were also passed by Chief Ministers of various Governments at different point of time recommending denotification of aforesaid lands. However, the same has not fructified in passing an order denotifying the said lands. Having failed in their attempt the Developer of the aforesaid land, namely, M/s. Addi Housing and Industrial Limited initiated the proceedings challenging the acquisition of lands in dispute by filing several batches of writ petitions in the year 2002. The said writ petitions were filed by them in the name of land owners as their GPA Holder in W.P.Nos.37126-127, 40150167 and 41771-792 of 2002. 6. It is further not in dispute that said first batch of writ petitions when came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.4.2003, the learned Single Judge noticed that initially said writ petitions were admitted and interim order was granted in favour of petitioners on the premise that in an identical batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.17935-39/2002, arising out of same notification, interim order was already granted wherein the acquisition of lands under same notification was under challenge. Subsequently, after coming to know that the aforesaid batch of writ petitions were in respect of notification issued for acquisition of lands for formation of HBR III Stage and not for formation of BTM IV stage the interim order granted was sought to be vacated. The learned Single Judge instead of vacating the interim order took up the same for final hearing and after hearing both parties disposed off the first batch of writ petitions filed by land owners holding that they do not survive for consideration. The learned Single Judge while disposing the aforesaid petitions observed that the notifications under challenge in the present set of writ petitions were already subject matter of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.11127-28/2000 which writ petitions were filed on the ground that substantial implementation of the scheme has not taken place as contemplated under Section 27 of the BDA Act, therefore, the scheme for which the lands are acquired has lapsed and consequently, notifications are required to be quashed. 7. It is seen that said writ petitions in W.P.Nos.11127-28/2000 were referred to Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench after hearing the same disposed of said writ petitions by its order dated 13.3.2003, upholding the notification dated 6.8.1988 (preliminary notification) and 3.11.1990 (final notification) for acquisition of lands in Devarachikkanahalli and Bilekanahalli for formation of BTM IV Stage. The said order of dismissal passed in W.P.Nos.11127-28/2000 by the Division Bench of this Court was not challenged by the petitioners therein. Therefore, the order rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.3.2002 so far as it pertains to the very same notification dated 6.8.1988 and 3.11.1990 reached finality as it remained unchallenged. In that view of the matter, referring to the relevant portion of the order which upheld the aforesaid notifications, the learned Single Judge of this Court proceeded to dismiss the batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.37126-127 c/w 40150-167 and 41771-792 of 2002 by common order dated 10.4.2003. The petitioners in the said batch of writ petitions (except petitioners in W.P.Nos.37126-127/2002) have come up in W.A.Nos.4771-811/2003. 8. It is seen that subsequent to dismissal of writ petitions filed in the name of land owners by the land Developer M/s. Addi Housing and Industrial Ltd., the purchasers of sites from the said Developer came up in W.P.No.13474/2005. The petitioners in the said batch of writ petitions (except petitioners in W.P.Nos.37126-127/2002) have come up in W.A.Nos.4771-811/2003. 8. It is seen that subsequent to dismissal of writ petitions filed in the name of land owners by the land Developer M/s. Addi Housing and Industrial Ltd., the purchasers of sites from the said Developer came up in W.P.No.13474/2005. Incidentally, said writ petition was filed nearly after two years from the time the petitions filed by the landowners were dismissed. 9. On going through the grounds urged in the said writ petition and also the earlier batch of writ petitions filed by the land owners it is obvious that second batch of writ petition filed by subsequent purchasers of sites is again at the instance of its Developer M/s. Addi Hosing and Industrial Limited who having failed in its attempt to secure quashing of the preliminary and final notification of lands in question through the land owners have set up these purchasers to continue its fight against acquisition through proxy. Incidentally, second batch of writ petition filed by subsequent purchasers of sites also came up before the same bench which disposed of the first batch of writ petitions filed by the land owners. The learned Single Judge after hearing the petitioners and also on going through the grounds urged in the writ petition observed that the notification under challenge was already decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.11127-28/2000 and following which judgment the writ petitions filed by the land owners being dismissed on 10.4.2003 the writ petition filed by subsequent purchasers/site owners does not survive for consideration. While disposing of said second batch of writ petitions the learned Single Judge also observed that in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India –vs- Shiva Kumar Bhargava and Others, wherein it is held as under: “A person who purchases land subsequent to the notification may be entitled to claim compensation by virtue of sale made in his favour, namely, the right, title and interest the predecessor had but, he cannot be said to be the owner for allotment since the right of ownership would be determined with reference to the date on which notification under Section 4(1) was published. This was the view of this Court in another case while considering the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court. This was the view of this Court in another case while considering the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The respondent cannot be considered to be the owner as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) published in the Gazette.” which was subsequently followed by Full Bench of this Court in Poornaprajna House Building Cooperative Society –vs- Bailamma, reported in ILR 1998(2) KAR 1441 held that the petitioners even otherwise does not have locus standi to challenge the said acquisition and accordingly, said batch of writ petition was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners therein have come up before this Court in W.A.Nos.263/2008 and 5137-5197/2011. 10. Since these two batches of writ appeals pertain to the challenge regarding the same notifications issued for acquisition of lands in Devarachikkanahalli and Bilekanahalli for formation of BTM IV Stage, these two batch of writ appeals are taken up together for consideration. 11. Heard the counsel for appellants and respondents. 12. Infact, the grounds urged in these appeals are not different from the one which were urged and decided by the learned Single Judge. They are; the scheme is not substantially implemented within five years from the date of publication of declaration of scheme under Section 19(1) as contemplated under Section 27 of the BDA Act; the scheme is abandoned and has become infructuous; therefore, the principle laid down in Bandu Ramaswamy’s case apply to the facts of the case rendering the scheme becoming non existent due to deletion of most of the lands from acquisition; that the vesting of the land under the Act is only when notification under Section 37(1) of the Act is published when possession is delivered and compensation is paid. Since there is no records to show that the award has been approved by the Government within five years from the date of scheme, the scheme is lapsed in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in ILR 1996 KAR 2069 (FB). That there is modification of the scheme as drafted by the Government. The said modification is done by the BDA without any power to modify the same and since it is not subject to the satisfaction of the Government and without there being cause to make substantial modification in the approved development plan. That there is modification of the scheme as drafted by the Government. The said modification is done by the BDA without any power to modify the same and since it is not subject to the satisfaction of the Government and without there being cause to make substantial modification in the approved development plan. Therefore, it is hit by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1972 SC 182 . In support of their contention the appellants have relied upon the following judgments: 1. In the matter of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and another Vs. State of Gujarat & Others. Reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374 . 2. In the matter of Banda Development Authority Band Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Others. Reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 Para 3 & 7. 3. In the matter of Bandu Ramaswamy & Others Vs. BDA & Others Reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 para 3 & 7. 4. In the matter of Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 505 . 5. In the matter of Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555 . 6. In the matter of Girnar Traders (3) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1 . 7. In the matter of K.K. Poonacha Vs. State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 671 Para-13 & 49. 8. In the matter of Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. B.D.A. & Others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1 39 Para-34, 56, 57. 9. In the matter of The Amritsar Improvement Trust etc., vs. Baldev Inder Singh & Others etc., reported in AIR 1972 SC 182 . 10. In the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Gokula Education Foundation, Bangalore & Others reported in 2005 (6) Kar.L.J. 429 Para-20(DB) 11. In the matter of Khub Chand & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others reported in AIR 1967 SC 1074 . 12. In the matter of Bahulal Badnaprasad Varma vs. Surat Municipal Corporation & Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2919 . 13. In the matter of Krishnamurthy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1258 Para-4. 14. In the matter of M.B. Ramachandran Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1992 KAR 174 Para 25 at page 195. 15. In the matter of Bahulal Badnaprasad Varma vs. Surat Municipal Corporation & Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2919 . 13. In the matter of Krishnamurthy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1258 Para-4. 14. In the matter of M.B. Ramachandran Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1992 KAR 174 Para 25 at page 195. 15. In the matter of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. H.S. Hanumanthappa reported in ILR 1996 KAR 641 Para-10. 16. In the matter of State of Gujrat & Others Vs. Parshothamdas Ramdas Patel & Others reported in (1988) 1 SCC 132 para-9. 17. In the matter of Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., & Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 111 para-42. 18. In the matter of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 705 Para-81. 19. In the matter of Padma Sundra Rao (Dead) & others Vs. State of T.N. & Others reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533 Para-16. 20. In the matter of Hari Ram & Another Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in (2010) AIR SCW 1726 Para 24 & 25. 21. In the matter of B.E.M.L. Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Others reported in AIR 2004 SC 5054 Para-7. 22. In the matter of Anand Singh & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in JT 2010 (8) SC 15 Para-37. 23. In the matter of Muniyamma Vs. State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2007) 3 AIR KAR 553 Muniyamma’s case. 24. In the matter of Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Khakrkhane Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Additional L.T. Bangalore reported in ILR 1996 KAR 2069 Para-12, 15 & 19 (FB). 25. In the matter of Devender Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 728 para-33. 26. In the matter of Kanwar Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Environment & Another reported in (2010) AIR SCW 6427 para-32. 27. In the matter of Smt. Somavanti & Others Vs. The State of Punjab & Others reported in AIR 1963 SC 151 para 26 & 27. 28. In the matter of Alka Gupta Vs. Narender Kumar Gupta reported in (2010) 10 SCC 141 . 29. In the matter of S.N. Chandrashekar & Another Vs. 27. In the matter of Smt. Somavanti & Others Vs. The State of Punjab & Others reported in AIR 1963 SC 151 para 26 & 27. 28. In the matter of Alka Gupta Vs. Narender Kumar Gupta reported in (2010) 10 SCC 141 . 29. In the matter of S.N. Chandrashekar & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 2008 PARA-35. 30. In the matter of Reliance Energy Ltd. & Another vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 1 para-39. 31. In the matter of Hansraj H. Jain vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 634 Para-36. 32. In the matter of Smt. C.V. Shantha & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2006) 5 KLJ 361. 33. In the matter of Sri. G.T. Selvan & Another vs. State of Karnataka & Others reported in W.P.No.11127-28/2000 DD.13.03.2004 34. In the matter of The Commissioner, BDA vs. S. Chandrashekar & Others reported in W.A.No.1497/2004 DD.10.06.2004. 35. In the matter of Bhikubhai Vithlabhai Patel and others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2008) 4 SCC 144 . 36. In the matter of AIR 1994 SC 1918 Para-173 & 174 reported in S.R. Bommai & Others etc. Vs. Union of India & Others etc. 37. In the matter of M/s. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Labour & Others reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3953 Paras-17 to 20. 38. In the matter of Carona Ltd. vs. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons reported in (2007) 8 SCC 559 Para 27 & 28. 39. In the matter of Sunil Pannalal Banitha & Others vs. City & Industrial Development corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Another reported in (2007) 10 SCC 674 . 40. In the matter of Bajranglal Shivachandrai Ruia vs. Shahikant Ruia & Others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 272 Para-73. 41. In the matter of Ramachandra Murailal Bhattad & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2007) 2 SCC 588 para-47. 42. In the matter of Ram Phal Kundu vs. Kamal Sharma reported in (2004) 2 SCC 759 para 12 & 13. 43. In the matter of Pushpa Devi Bhagat, dead through Dr. Sadhnma Rai (Smt) vs. Rajinder Singh & Others. 44. 42. In the matter of Ram Phal Kundu vs. Kamal Sharma reported in (2004) 2 SCC 759 para 12 & 13. 43. In the matter of Pushpa Devi Bhagat, dead through Dr. Sadhnma Rai (Smt) vs. Rajinder Singh & Others. 44. In the matter of Pancham Chand & Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) AIR SCW 2111 para-16, 17 & 20. It is quite interesting to note that in addition to urging the substantial questions of law the learned Counsel for the appellant also ventured to point out to this Court by referring to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Zahira Habibullah Scheikh – vs- State of Gujarath, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374 , wherein two stanzas of 8th Chapter of Manu Samhitha was referred. It was “Dharma will overcome Adharma and Truth triumphs over unfounded falsehood”. The Judges who are part of the decision making process will be shouldering 1/4th of the sin along with perpetrator of sin, witness and the ruler. The said stanza reads as under:- “Jatro dharmo hyadharmena Satyam jatranrutenacha Hanyate prekshyamananam Hatastrata sabhasadah Padodharmasya kartaram Padah sakshinomruchhati Padah sabhasadah sarban Pado rajanmruchhati.” 13. We are unable to understand why the reliance on these two stanzas was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his case. It is more in the nature of attributing exercise of ‘Adharma’ by this Court, if it fails to positively consider the grounds urged by the appellants in its favour. Unfortunately, the facts and circumstances in these appeals are not supported by any of the 44 judgments referred to by the counsel for appellants. 14. Out of the aforesaid 44 judgments referred to, Banda Development Authority Banda, Bandu Ramaswamy & Others, Girnar Traders (1, 2 and 3 judgments rendered in 2004, 2007 and 2011), K.K. Poonacha and Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. are the important judgments, on which reliance was sought to be placed by the learned counsel appearing for the land owners through their Power of Attorney Holder, M/s. Addi Housing and Industries Private Limited, and also the owners of sites purchased through the aforesaid M/s. Addi Housing and Industries Private Limited. 15. 15. Now coming to first of them, i.e., Banda Development Authority, Banda, wherein taking of possession of land by Banda Development Authority, Banda, in Allahabad State was challenged by the land owners on the ground that neither the physical possession of the land was taken nor the award was passed within two years as per the mandate of the relevant Act. Wherein while setting aside the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Banda Development Authority. In the said ruling Apex Court observed the mode in which the possession is required to be taken and how a particular act would constitute taking possession of the land were dealt at length. The appellants-land owners and site owners through M/s. Addi Housing and Industries Private Limited, tried to rely upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, as the same would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case with regard to taking possession, since BDA having not taken possession of the land belonging to the land owners which is being developed by M/s. Addi Housing and Industries Private Limited, and the same continues to be in the possession of the land owners and their Power of Attorney Holder, M/s. Addi Housing and Industries Private Limited. 16. Coming to the next judgment, Banda Ramaswamy, this was relied for the reason that in Banda Ramaswamy’s case, the acquisition was rendered infructuous due to deletion of majority of lands from the proposed acquisition. In that view of the matter, the project or the scheme ceased to exist. In such cases, relief will have to be granted though not on the ground of discretion, but on the ground that the scheme has become non existent. According to appellants, similarly in the instant case also, though the acquisition is initially for an extent of 397 acres 34 guntas under preliminary notification, the final notification was only in respect of 241 acres 6 guntas and again subsequently several lands were deleted from acquisition on the ground that they are developed. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid judgment is pressed into service. 17. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid judgment is pressed into service. 17. So far as the judgment in Girnar Traders 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, that was with reference to challenge to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, vis-à-vis the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, i.e. an act which is similar to BDA Act with regard to acquisition of lands for developments, wherein proposition which was referred to the Larger Bench, was held as under: “191. Having said so, now we proceed to record our answer to the proposition referred to the larger Bench as follows: For the reasons stated in this judgment, we hold that the MRTP Act is a self-contained code. Further, we hold that provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal remedies provided under the said Act, can be read into an acquisition controlled by the provisions of Chapter VII of the MRTP Act but with a specific exception that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act insofar as they provided different time-frames and consequences of default thereof including lapsing of acquisition proceedings cannot be read into the MRTP Act. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act being one of such provisions cannot be applied to the acquisitions under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act.” The discussions and the findings of the Apex Court with reference to comparative state of both the act and their application were sought to be made use of seeking to set aside the acquisition proceedings in the instant case. 18. So far as K.K Poonacha and Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. were also relied upon, particularly with reference to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, vis-à-vis, Sections 27, 36 and 37 of the BDA Act, with reference to default in vesting of lands to the Government and transfer thereafter to the developmental authority. 19. So far as the judgments cited at Sl.Nos.9 to 44 are concerned, they are with reference to the right of BDA to modify the scheme. Regarding vesting of land with the Government and consequent transfer to BDA, non implementation of scheme within five years from the date of taking possession, are discussed in these judgments. 19. So far as the judgments cited at Sl.Nos.9 to 44 are concerned, they are with reference to the right of BDA to modify the scheme. Regarding vesting of land with the Government and consequent transfer to BDA, non implementation of scheme within five years from the date of taking possession, are discussed in these judgments. Reliance were placed on these judgments to show that the scheme is not implemented within the period of five years from the date of acquisition of land and that the land, which is acquired was not vested in Government and consequently not transferred to the authority in the manner required under law, as such the BDA does not get right to form layout therein, that there is modification of the scheme by the BDA without prior approval by the Government. Therefore the scheme also lapses on the account. 20. In the nutshell, buy relying upon the aforesaid 44 judgments, the appellants, owners of the land through their Power of Attorney Holder, M/s. Addi Housing and Industries Private Limited, and as well as the purchasers of the sites formed thereunder from M/s. Addi Housing and Industries Private Limited, have tried to draw strength from the aforesaid judgments, seeking quashing of the preliminary and final notifications, acquiring the lands belonging to the owners herein for formation of layout by BDA, atleast to the extent of their land in the aforesaid scheme. 21. Probably under different set of facts and circumstances of the cases it might have enured to their benefit, but not in the instant case for the following reasons: Firstly, the preliminary notification and final notification for acquisition of the lands in question challenged in these proceedings are of the year 1988 and 1990. The records clearly disclose that as on the date of preliminary and final notifications there was no development activity on the lands in question, no third party rights were created. It is only two years after the final notification the land owners and M/s. Addi Housing and Industrial Limited with full knowledge of the subject land being under acquisition have ventured entering into an agreement contrary to the provisions of law and proceeded to form a layout in utter violation of law governing the acquisition of lands. The land owners and Developer were fully aware that once the acquisition proceedings are initiated there is prohibition for alienation of said land. The land owners and Developer were fully aware that once the acquisition proceedings are initiated there is prohibition for alienation of said land. It is also seen from 1992 to 2002 several attempts were made by them approaching different Governments at different point of time seeking denotification of said lands from acquisition. It is only after having failed in all their attempts they have come to this Court as a last resort through first batch of writ petitions in 2002. When the appellants themselves have committed an error in entering into agreement for purchase of land under acquisition the question of upholding their contention to quash the notification on the aforesaid reasons does not arise. 22. Incidentally, the facts and circumstances under which the aforesaid 44 judgments have come into place have no nexus to the facts and circumstances of this case. While considering the application of ratio in a decided matter the said ratio cannot be taken out without reference to the facts and could not be applied to a case where on facts the parties to litigation are at wrong. In the instant case if the aforesaid grounds urged by the appellants is accepted relying upon the aforesaid decisions then it would result in wrong application of the principles laid down by the Apex Court to a situation where person seeking justice at the hands of this Court are themselves at wrong. 23. Secondly, it is well settled that whenever a property which is subject to lis or subject to notification for acquisition is acquired, the purchaser would only be expected to seek compensation by virtue of transfer made in his favour subject to the right, title and interest his predecessor had, over such property but he cannot be said to be the owner for other reliefs as held by the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India –vs-Shivkumar Bhargava and Ors., which is being followed by Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Poornaprajna House Building Cooperative Society –vs- Bailamma, reported in ILR 1998 (2) KAR 1441. 24. Thirdly, the very notification which is under challenge in this proceedings is already upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in W.P.Nos.11127-28/2000 between G.T. Selvan & Anr. 24. Thirdly, the very notification which is under challenge in this proceedings is already upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in W.P.Nos.11127-28/2000 between G.T. Selvan & Anr. –vs- State of Karnataka &Ors., by an order dated 13.3.2003 which has reached finality and the same being unchallenged by the land owners, it is not appropriate for this Court to differ with the said finding after a lapse of nearly eight years from the date of the said judgment. 25. On going through the order impugned it is clearly seen that the learned Single Judge taking into consideration all these aspects and also giving careful consideration to all the grounds referred to therein which were urged by the appellants who were petitioners in the said batch of writ petitions has rightly held that the notifications under challenge have reached finality and that in the light of the affidavit filed by the officers of BDA before this Court way back in the year 2003 itself, it is observed that the entire scheme is implemented well within the time. Therefore, the grounds urged by the appellants regarding the scheme being lapsed is rightly rejected and the learned Single Judge has also rejected various other grounds urged in support thereof. On reappreciation of the order impugned this Court hold that there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the order impugned in appreciating the grounds urged by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions. 26. In that view of the matter, the order impugned does not call for interference of this Court in these intra Court Appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs.