JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is said to be a housing co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Societies Act', for brevity). It had in the past formed a residential housing layout, which area is now comprised of Vijayanagar II Stage layout, in Bangalore city. It is also stated that the Society had undertaken development over certain lands of Pattanagere village and had negotiated with land owners in respect of identified lands earmarked for such development. This was necessitated as the law did not permit the petitioner from directly purchasing such agricultural lands and developing the same. However, it was permissible to acquire the same through the State Government which would facilitate the acquisition of the said lands for housing. It was in this direction that the petitioner had simultaneously negotiated and entered into certain transactions with the land owners and also approached the State Government with regard to acquisition of the identified lands. The petitioner places reliance on documentation executed by the land owners in having put the petitioner in permissive possession of the lands in question on receipt of valuable consideration. The State Government in turn had proceeded to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the land. 2. Though there was a challenge to the acquisition by a solitary land owner, this court is said to have quashed the entire acquisition proceedings, on the ground that there was a failure to obtain prior approval for the housing scheme, while initiating the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner Society had unsuccessfully challenged the said order in a writ appeal and in a special leave petition before the apex court. It was directed by the apex court by its order dated 25.2.1995 as follows : (4) In the appeal Nos.3011-19 of 1995 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.11482-90 of 1991, after the dismissal of the appeals a direction has been given that as a result of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings including the notification in question, the possession of the land shall be restored to the respective land owners irrespective of the fact whether they had challenged the acquisition of their lands or not. A further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession to the land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands. A further direction has been given that on restoration of the possession to the land owners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands. We issue a similar direction even in the case. The petitioners and the respondents including all concerned authorities/persons shall implement the aforesaid directions at an early date. Ordered accordingly." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that notwithstanding the above circumstance, the land owners had again entered into further transactions, ratifying the earlier transactions and acknowledging that the petitioner had developed the layout and distributed sites formed in the layout to its members, some of whom had even put up construction on the sites. This situation of the petitioner having developed the layout was possible even during the pendency of the proceedings before this court, as there was no order of stay of the acquisition proceedings. The distribution of the sites had commenced as early as the year 1989, and had been almost completed by the year 1992. The land which was then within the jurisdiction of the Sarakki Notified Area Committee had also issued khatha certificates to the respective allottees and site owners. 4. It is contended that the land owners who had, pursuant to the order of the apex court referred to hereinabove, notionally taken back possession of their land on refund of compensation amounts received by them, are said to have executed documents in favour of the petitioner confirming and ratifying that the lands were fully developed and were in the possession of allottee members of the petitioner society. There were civil suits filed by the Society against the erstwhile land owners in respect of certain lands which had been developed pending the challenge to the acquisition proceedings - which had again resulted in the same being decreed in favour of the Society. 5. In the above circumstances, one Arasamma, the deceased sixth respondent herein, is said to have approached one S.N. Krishnaiah Setty, who was the then MLA of Malur constituency and had got issued a letter to the Revenue Minister of the State Government, seeking his intervention. This was inspite of the said Arasamma having executed documentation acknowledging the fact of her voluntary surrender of the land for due consideration. This was inspite of the said Arasamma having executed documentation acknowledging the fact of her voluntary surrender of the land for due consideration. However, at the behest of the Revenue Minister, who had forwarded the letter of the MLA aforesaid, the first respondent was called upon to examine and take action on the basis of the said letter. The first respondent had on 16.9.2006 directed the Sub-Registrar of the area to investigate all cases of sale of land by the Society to its members after the lands were directed to be returned to the erstwhile land owners by the apex court and to take immediate steps to cancel such sale deeds. The Society had immediately approached this court in respect of such action, by recourse to a writ petition in W.P.No.2045/2007, and the said petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner would be heard before any action is taken to cancel the sale transactions. The petitioner had filed its objections to the above proposed action, with all supporting documents. It is stated that pursuant to the direction issued by the apex court as afore mentioned, the Land Acquisition Officer had issued endorsements to the Society to the effect that the lands covered under the acquisition proceedings had been delivered back to the respective erstwhile land owners after receipt of refund of the compensation amounts paid to them. Hence there was due compliance with the directions issued by the apex court. Though it was not evident that there were any directions issued to the Deputy Commissioner by the State Government, he had proceeded to direct the fourth and the fifth respondents to take steps to demolish all construction put up in the lay out formed by the Society. It is hence the case of the petitioner that the said action and threat of demolition and the unrelenting pressure brought on the Society and its members through the police to demolish the construction in the lay out has compelled the petitioner to approach this court. 6. The learned Senior Advocate, Shri Madhusudhan R. Naik, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is not in dispute, as admitted by the sixth respondent that the order of the Supreme Court has spent itself out upon the State Government passing an order that possession of the lands in question has been restored to the land owners. Any doubt as to whether the directions issued by the Supreme Court had been violated or had not been complied with, is set at rest with the dismissal by the said court of contempt proceedings initiated by certain land owners making the very allegation. Apart from canvassing that it was not open for the Society to enter into independent transactions in the aftermath of the Order of the Supreme Court or for the members of the Society to assert possession over parcels of land on which they had constructed houses and in seeking khatha certificates from the local authority. The order of the Supreme court dismissing the contempt proceedings by its order dated 5-1-2007 has therefore set at rest all proceedings arising out of the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. It is further contended by the learned Senior Advocate that in so far as the direction issued by the first respondent dated 16.9.2006 having been challenged before this court and the said respondent having been directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner to the said direction, the first respondent has by his order dated 10.8.2012, withdrawn the directions issued vide order dated 16.9.2006. In that, the said respondent has referred to the opinion furnished by the Law Department of the State Government, that with the acquisition proceedings being set at naught, any sale deeds executed pursuant to the same are rendered a nullity. And that it is not provided for in law enabling the Sub- Registrar to cancel the sale deeds and hence the direction issued was unnecessary and has withdrawn the same. Shri Naik therefore contends that the impugned order which was only an adjunct to the Order of the first respondent and seemingly in aid of better implementation of the same would not survive independently and is wholly illegal. It is also asserted that the several respondents who have impleaded themselves during the pendency of this petition are seeking to set up an independent claim in respect of the land in question, while disputing the right of the land owners who may have returned the compensation amount to the State Government in staking their claim to the lands in question. The petitioner Society has negotiated and transacted with such of those land owners who were identified by the State Government as persons entitled for restoration of the lands and had obtained their acquiescence in protecting the possession and enjoyment of properties held by its members and constructed upon. The claim or dispute sought to be raised by the said respondents cannot be the subject matter of this petition and would have to be agitated, if at all, by the said respondents in appropriate proceedings which they are at liberty to institute, if the law permits. Therefore the learned Senior Advocate, Shri Naik, seeks that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed. 7. Though Statement of objections are filed on behalf of the State to justify the action initiated, it is not in serious dispute that it was the direction issued by the first respondent as per communication dated 16.9.2006, which was the source of inspiration for the impugned order. The same having been withdrawn, the State Government has not indicated that any of its authorities are required to take any action to implement the order of the Supreme Court. The impugned direction therefore can hardly be sustained. 8. Insofar as the several private respondents are concerned, it is evident that their endeavour is to protect their own alleged interest in the land in question and are keen to support the impugned order. Beyond this their participation in these proceedings is incidental. Their claim or interest if any in the land in question would have to be independently agitated in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. The same however, cannot be the subject matter of adjudication of this petition. In the above circumstances the impugned orders at Annexures -M and N, to the writ petition, are quashed.