ORDER A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J. 1. According to the petitioner one K.T. Venkatesh son of late K.R. Tukarama Rao was granted occupancy rights on 31.08.1979 in respect of 16 guntas of land in Sy. No. 172/2A of Bilekahalli Village, Begur Hobli, by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk and a certificate of registration in Form-10 was issued on 17.08.1982. Petitioner claims that K.T. Venkatesh executed an agreement of sale dated 19.06.1996(Annexure-F1) in his favour, agreeing to sell, out of the said property, an extent of 100 ft. east-west and 70 ft. north-south and delivered possession of the property. Petitioner claims that, K.T. Venkatesh also executed a deed of General Power of Attorney dated 19.06.1996 (Annexure-F) in his favour, in respect of the said property and thus, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying the tax to Bommanahalli CMC. According to the petitioner, BDA formed four sites in the said 16 guntas of land, without any authority of law and allotted the same to respondent Nos. 3 to 6. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for a declaration that he is in possession and enjoyment of 16 guntas of land and for quashing the allotment of the sites made by the BDA vide Annexures-O, P, Q & R, in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Bangalore Development Authority, by filing statement of objections contended that in the land in Sy. No. 172/2A of Bilekahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, after conducting a detailed survey, prepared development scheme, drew-up a preliminary notification dated 19.09.1977 under sub-sections (1) & (3) of S. 17 of the BDA Act, 1976 and published the same in the Official Gazette dated 29.09.1977 and after sanction of the scheme, a final declaration dated 07.02.1978 under S. 19(1) of the Act was issued by the Government and was published in the Official Gazette dated 09.03.1978 and that the said property was acquired for implementation of BTM Layout scheme. BDA further stated that an award dated 27.02.1984 was passed by the SLAO in LAC No. 671/78-79 and thereafter, the possession of the land was taken and delivered to its engineering section. BDA has stated that the challenge put forth to the said preliminary and final notifications i.e., in respect of the land in Sy. BDA further stated that an award dated 27.02.1984 was passed by the SLAO in LAC No. 671/78-79 and thereafter, the possession of the land was taken and delivered to its engineering section. BDA has stated that the challenge put forth to the said preliminary and final notifications i.e., in respect of the land in Sy. No. 172/2A of Bilekahalli village was negated on 13.09.1996 in W.P. No. 11299/1996 and that W.P. No. 26992/2000 filed by Mr. Munnavar Basha and another having been dismissed on 08.03.2002, the order when questioned was upheld in W.A. No. 3515/2002 decided on 20.09.2006. BDA contended that the writ petition is not maintainable; hit by delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 2. Mr. Ilyas Hussain, learned advocate contended that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property by virtue of an agreement of sale and also a deed of GPA dated 19.06.1996 executed by K.T. Venkatesh and hence, has the locus standi to maintain the writ petition against the arbitrary and illegal action of BDA, which, without acquisition of the property by issue of notice either to K.T. Venkatesh or to the petitioner, made the allotment of sites illegally formed in the property, in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. He further contended that the petitioner being the person in actual possession, pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 19.06.1996 has an interest in the subject property and therefore, is entitled to question the arbitrary and illegal action of BDA, on all the grounds as are available to K.T. Venkatesh. 3. Mr. M. Karunakaran, learned advocate for the BDA on the other hand vehemently contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition, as he had not or has acquired the title over the subject property and even otherwise, the acquisition notifications being much earlier to the alleged agreement of sale and the deed of GPA dated 19.06.1996, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition and question the action of BDA in the matter of the allotment of the sites to respondents 3 to 6 nor seek any other relief. He submitted that the challenge put forth in W.P. No. 11299/1996 to the acquisition of the land in Sy. He submitted that the challenge put forth in W.P. No. 11299/1996 to the acquisition of the land in Sy. No. 117/2A was negated on 13.09.1996 and even otherwise there being no challenge to the acquisition notifications by Sri K.T. Venkatesh, this writ petition filed only challenging the allotment of sites formed by BDA, in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 is not maintainable. He also raised the question of delay, laches etc. 4. Shriyuths S. Lakshminarayana and Soma Sundara Dikshit, learned advocates appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 5, urged similar contentions and sought dismissal of writ petition with exemplary cost. 5. Perused the writ record. Keeping in view the rival contentions the primary question that arises for consideration is "whether the petitioner has the locus standi to question the allotment of sites formed by the BDA in Sy. No. 172/2A of Bilekahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk?" 6. W.P. No. 11299/1996 was filed contending that the petitioner therein was the owner in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy. No. 172/2A measuring 3 acres situated at Bilekahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, the same having been purchased under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1983, with a prayer to quash the preliminary notification issued by BDA on 19.09.1977 published in the Official Gazette dated 29.09.1977 and the final notification dated 07.02.1978 published in the Official Gazette dated 09.03.1978 and also the award passed by the SLAO in LAC No. 671/1978-79 dated 27.02.1984. While upholding acquisition of the land in Sy. No. 172/2A, the said writ petition was rejected on 13.09.1996. There was second round of litigation in W.P. No. 26992/2000 and the same was dismissed on 08.03.2002. The said order when questioned in W.A. No. 3515/2002 was upheld on 20.09.2006. 7. During the course of hearing, Mr. Ilyas Hussain, conceded that K.T. Venkatesh, who executed the agreement of sale and the deed of power of attorney (Annexures-F and F1) in respect of the subject property on 19.06.1996, died much earlier to the date of filing of this writ petition. In law, the contract of agency gets automatically terminated by death of either of the parties. As soon as the person who executed the power of attorney dies, the right given to the agent comes to an end. In law, the contract of agency gets automatically terminated by death of either of the parties. As soon as the person who executed the power of attorney dies, the right given to the agent comes to an end. Once the agency is terminated on account of the operation of law or by the act of the principal, the agent cannot act on the basis of the power conferred upon him under the deed of power of attorney. In view of death of K.T. Venkatesh, the power conferred upon the petitioner to act as the agent as per the deed dated 19.06.1996 has got automatically terminated. 8. Mr. Ilyas Hussain admitted that the petitioner has not instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 19.06.1996 against K.T. Venkatesh. Even if, the petitioner has been put in possession of the property while executing the agreement of sale dated 19.06.1996, in law, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the acquisition proceedings or the allotment of sites by the BDA. In catena of cases, Apex Court has held that the alienation of land after issuance of a Notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act is void and the purchaser cannot question the acquisition of the property. It is trite that a person who purchased the property after the publication of a Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is not entitled to challenge the acquisition for the reason, that his title as against State and the beneficiary of the land acquisition is void and he can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor's title. (See (1996) 10 SCC 721 - Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of India; (1995) 5 SCC 335 - Mahavir v. Rural Institute; (1995) 2 SCC 528 - Gian Chand v. Gopala; (2008) 9 SCC 177 - Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi; (2009) 10 SCC 689 - Tika Ram v. State of U.P.) 9. (See (1996) 10 SCC 721 - Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of India; (1995) 5 SCC 335 - Mahavir v. Rural Institute; (1995) 2 SCC 528 - Gian Chand v. Gopala; (2008) 9 SCC 177 - Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi; (2009) 10 SCC 689 - Tika Ram v. State of U.P.) 9. In the case of Smt. Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. and Another, AIR 1996 SC 540 , Apex Court has held that "any alienation of land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition and that the person must be the owner of the land, on the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) was published." In effect, it has been held that the person who purchased the property subsequent to preliminary notification has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. 10. From the above it becomes clear that in an agreement of sale the person who was put in possession, only has a right to enforce an obligation which other party owed to him, in as much as no title passes under an agreement of sale. Hence, the petitioner, who has not acquired title over the subject property under the agreement of sale dated 19.06.1996 has no right to raise any objection with regard to acquisition proceeding which was initiated much earlier to the alleged transaction between himself and K.T. Venkatesh, noticed supra. Keeping in view the undisputed facts, noticed supra, the petitioner has no right to take any kind of exception to the acquisition of the subject property by the Government, the formation of layout and allotment of the sites formed therein by the BDA, in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. In the result, writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their respective costs.