ORDER K.L. MANJUNATH, J.—These appeals are preferred by the appellants challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 13379/05 dated 4th July, 2007. 2. The petitioners approached the learned single Judge with a request to declare that the BDA is not entitled to transfer the lands acquired for the benefit of the petitioners and 3rd respondent and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to finalise the allotment of land acquired for the benefit of the petitioners. 3. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder: The appellants are wholesale iron and steel and hardware merchants located in Bangalore and they were carrying on the business in the City Market area of Bangalore city. The City Market is situated in the heart of Bangalore city and that the petitioners were carrying on the business in iron and steel for several decades. On account of increase in the population and expansion of commercial activities, it was felt by the respondents-Government and the B.D.A. that the City Market area is not suitable for trading in wholesale iron and steel business. In order to provide a better place to these petitioners and with an intention to construct a wholesale Iron and Steel Market outside the Bangalore City, the Government and B.D.A. identified the land situated in Kondasapura near Hoskote which is about 24 kms. from Bangalore City Market. The project was conceived as part of the Bangalore Megacity Project. A Consultant was appointed by the BMRDA and report was submitted in August, 1994. Based on the report, 166acres of land was acquired and entire area was developed and 747 commercial plots of different dimensions were formed by the BDA. A preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act was published in the Gazette on 23.3.1994 and after inviting objections and hearing a final notification was issued on 24.1.1996. Thereafter possession of the land was taken by issuing a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the then Chief Minister of Karnataka laid the foundation stone for the Iron and Steel Wholesale Market and entire Iron and Steel Market was developed by the BDA by borrowing the loan from HUDCO and KUIDFC. Thereafter possession of the land was taken by issuing a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the then Chief Minister of Karnataka laid the foundation stone for the Iron and Steel Wholesale Market and entire Iron and Steel Market was developed by the BDA by borrowing the loan from HUDCO and KUIDFC. After formation or the iron and steel yard, the BDA announced seeking applications for allotment of sites from the eligible iron and steel merchants and allotment rate was also fixed at Rs. 1,650/- per sq. meter. Later on the request made by the appellants herein and the association, price was also reduced from Rs. 1,650/- to Rs. 1,450/- per sq. meter. However, the association informed BDA that the members of the appellants association can only pay up to Rs. 1,000/- per sq. meter with a deferred payment on easy installments for 10 years. The association and its members requested the BDA to accept their offer. The BDA did not accept the offer made by the members of the 1st appellant considering the cost of investment and interest payable by the BDA. In the circumstances, from the year 1999, either the association or its members did not make any application for allotment and did not make any payment. Since the market developed by the BDA for the benefit of the appellants was not utilised by the appellants and its members, Government thought of selling the land through KIADB to the 3rd respondent and the matter was placed before the High Level Committee of the Government and considering that the sale of land to 3rd respondent is for establishment of a Special Economic Zone, it was granted to the 3rd respondent. Challenging the order of the Government in allotting the land to the 3rd respondent and on the ground that the BDA cannot divert the land acquired for the benefit of the appellants for some other purpose, the Writ Petition was filed. Challenging the order of the Government in allotting the land to the 3rd respondent and on the ground that the BDA cannot divert the land acquired for the benefit of the appellants for some other purpose, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned single Judge after considering the arguments advanced by all the parties and the statement of objections filed by the BDA and respondents, came to the conclusion that the appellants herein and other iron and steel merchants were not willing to occupy the sites earmarked for their purpose, since they did not make use of the opportunity for more than 8 years from the date of the final notification either the BDA or the Government cannot be directed to keep the entire layout vacant without utilising foe same for other purpose when the BDA has invested crores of rupees by borrowing the loan from HUDCO and KUIDFC. The learned single Judge was also of the opinion that the BDA had to pay heavy interest on the aforesaid borrowings. Therefore, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioners did not make use of the opportunity for more than 8 years and it was open for the BDA and Government to utilise the land for better purpose, when the appellants were not interested in implementing the project. In the circumstances, he dismissed the Writ Petition. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the present appeals are filed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The main contention of the appellants counsel before us is that the learned single Judge has committed a serious error in not considering the fact that the BDA had no power to divest the land which were acquired for the benefit of the appellants and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act. He further submits that the sale of lands by the BDA through KIADB to the 3rd respondent is also illegal and, therefore, he requests the Court to cancel the allotment made in favour of the 3rd respondent and permit the appellants to pay the money and direct the respondents to allot the site to them and he submits that the appellants are willing to pay to days market value for allotment of the cities. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Writ Petition filed by the appellants were required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. According to them when the Government and BDA had come cut with a project to provide a better area for the business of the appellants, when a special project was innovated by the Government and BDA by borrowing loan from HUDCO and KUIDFC and formed lay out and requested the appellants to pay the sital value at Rs. 1,650/- per sq. meter and that too BDA and Government had agreed to reduce the rate of allotment from Rs. 1,650/- to Rs. 1,450/- and when the appellants have failed to make use of the said opportunity, no Court can direct the BDA or the Government to keep such a land forever vacant without utilising the same. It is also contended by them that Hosakote area is earmarked for Special Economic Zone and since the land In question comes within SEZ area the land had been sold by the Government by taking a decision in a High Power Committee to sell the same to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, they request the Court to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by this Court in these appeals is whether the learned single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the petition. 8. It is no doubt true that the project was conceived by the Government and BDA for the benefit of the appellants and other Iron and steel merchants of Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that lands were acquired by the BDA for specific purpose and commercial area was developed by the BDA by carving 747 sites of different dimensions to house these appellants. It is also not in dispute that possession of the property was taken in 1997 and lay out was formed immediately by borrowing loan from HUDCO and KUIDFC. The BDA was required to pay interest on the loan borrowed by it. It is also not in dispute that it was intimated to the appellants and others to file applications for allotment fixing the sital value at Rs. 1,650/- per sq. The BDA was required to pay interest on the loan borrowed by it. It is also not in dispute that it was intimated to the appellants and others to file applications for allotment fixing the sital value at Rs. 1,650/- per sq. meter and on the request of the appellants the price was reduced to Rs. 1,450/- per sq. meter, Though the rates were reduced, the appellants have kept quite even without filing applications or making any initial deposit for the purpose of allotment. In other words the appellants who were silent spectators and did not make any effort to make use of the opportunity created by the Government and the BDA, have approached the Court in the year 2005 long after selling the land to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the appellants were silent spectators, they were not willing to occupy the lands and they were not willing to shift their business from City Market to Kondasapura. In such circumstances, if the BDA and the Government thought of selling the property to 3rd respondent and after selling the land, if the appellants have approached this Court, no Court can grant any relief to the appellants who did not make use of the opportunity granted to them. When once the lands are sold, the request of the appellants that they are willing to pay and deposit the present market value cannot be considered by this Court and this Court cannot direct the BDA or the Government to cancel the sale of property to the 3rd respondent. But the learned single Judge has categorically stated that KIADB has not yet handed over the possession of the property to the 3rd respondent and it has directed the 3rd respondent to make 40% of the consideration and after completion of other obligations, further course of action would be taken. But the Writ Petition was dismissed in July, 2007. We do not know what transpired between the 3rd respondent and the BDA and KIADB. 9. As a matter of fact when the matter was taken up for hearing on 25.6.2009 a submission was made by the counsel for the BDA that resolution passed on 6.11.2008 to recall its earlier resolution dated 2.7.2003. We do not know what transpired between the 3rd respondent and the BDA and KIADB. 9. As a matter of fact when the matter was taken up for hearing on 25.6.2009 a submission was made by the counsel for the BDA that resolution passed on 6.11.2008 to recall its earlier resolution dated 2.7.2003. If such resolution is passed by the BDA it is between the KIADB, Government and the BDA and based on such submission, the Court cannot direct the BDA to allot the sites to the petitioners when they have slept over the matter for several years. 10. The contention of the appellants that when the lands were acquired for specific performance (for the benefit of the appellants), BDA has no power to divert the lands for some other purpose cannot be accepted by this Court. 11. In the background of the present case since the appellants have not evinced any interest to utilise the project innovated by the Government for the benefit of the appellants, when the appellants were not willing to occupy and when they were not willing to seek allotment of the sites earmarked for their benefit, no Court can say that BDA has to keep these sites vacant forever with the hope that the appellants would come and request for allotment. 12. Therefore, we do not see any error committed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition. 13. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge.