Judgment K.L. MANJUNATH, J. 1. The legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P. Nos.1529 and 1530 is called in question in this appeal. 2. Heard the Counsel for the appellant and Government Pleader for respondent 1. 3. The appellants who claims to be the owners of 1 acre 13 guntas in all situated at Kaval Byrasandra village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, had filed W.P.Nos.1529 and 1530 contending that the notifications issued under Sections 17(1) and 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 as become infructuous and inoperative due to lapse of time. According to them the notification under Sections 17 and 19 of the BDA Act respectively are of the years 1978 and 1985 and no award has been passed so far as the lands of the appellants are concerned. The appellants relying upon Annexure-G, filed writ petitions stating that no award is passed for long period and acquisition proceedings have become infructuous. 4. Learned Single Judge who heard the matter considering various judgments has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that merely because the award has not been passed for considerable period cannot be a ground for the Court to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent has become infructuous. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. According to Mr. Krishnappa, learned Advocate for the appellant, the entire land notified for acquisition for the formation of HBR Layout, II Stage has been denotified. Therefore, no purpose will be served in acquiring the land of the appellants. But we are unable to accept the arguments advanced by him because as could be seen from Annexure-F final declaration has been issued to an extend of 380 acres and 36 guntas of land in Kaval Byrasandra village. 6. Appellants have not placed any material before the Court to show that the remaining 379 acres of land in Kaval Byrasandra Villas has been denotified and even otherwise as it could be seen from Annexure-F, final declaration has been issued to acquire 1228 acres 39 guntas and it could be seen from Annexure-G. 7. Additional Land Acquisition Officer has only stated the award in respect of land in question of the appellants could not be passed on account of other disputes pending before the Court. Therefore, we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed.