JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner's father one R.Karibasappa is said to have purchased land bearing Sy.No.76/2 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas, together with certain construction there on of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 8/6/1944. The petitioner's father was shown as the khatedar pursuant to such sale and his name has been mutated in the revenue records. The copies of the sale deed and the revenue records from the year 1995-96 to 1999-2000 are produced. The father of the petitioner is said to have died in the year 1980, leaving behind four sons, out of whom two were no more and the petitioner being the eldest, was managing the affairs of the family and pursuant to his father's death, the land stands in the name of the petitioner and his brother claiming under Karibasappa. 3. It transpires that the lands in question namely the land bearing Sy.No.76/2 and other lands belonging to the family of the petitioner, were proposed to be acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, (BDA Act, for brevity), for the formation of the 'Hennur-Bellary Road II Stage Layout' and preliminary notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act had been issued on 29/5/1978 published in the official gazette on 21/9/1978. Thereafter the final notification was issued only on 28/2/1985 published in the official gazette on 6/6/1985. According to these notifications, eleven items of lands belonging to the family of the petitioner, apart from the other lands belonging to others, were notified for acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority including the schedule land bearing Sy.No.76/2 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas. Of these eleven items of lands, ten items, except the land bearing Sy.No.76/2, was subject-matter of yet another notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (LA Act, for brevity), dated 22/12/1984 followed by the final notification under Section 6(1) of the LA Act dated 21/2/1986, for the purpose of 'Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society'. It transpires that the petitioner's family was paid compensation in respect of the said ten items of land which were the subject-matter of the said acquisition. It transpires that the petitioner's family was paid compensation in respect of the said ten items of land which were the subject-matter of the said acquisition. It is further stated that consequent upon the issuance of the notifications for the benefit of the Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society under the LA Act, the State Government de-notified the lands which were notified by the Bangalore Development Authority earlier, by issuance of withdrawal notifications dated 4/12/1986, which were duly published in the official gazette on 8/1/1987. Though the land in Sl.Nos.1 to 10 which were notified for acquisition under the LA Act, stood withdrawn, the land bearing Sy.No.76/2 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas remained covered under the notification issued by the Bangalore Development Authority dated 29/5/1978 and 28/2/1985. It is claimed that the lands around the land bearing Sy.No.76/2 has either been de-notified and other lands have been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society and therefore the land in question is no longer available for development along with any other lands which the Bangalore Development Authority may propose to develop and hence the acquisition of the land bearing Sy.No.76/2 is no longer available for development along with other lands in the absence of contiguity of any lands that may be the subject matter of future development and acquisition. 4. The said notifications dated 29/5/1978 and 28/2/1985 were subject matter of challenge by the petitioner and his brother in writ petition in W.P.No.11030/85 before this court, which came to be disposed of by order dated 5/11/1988 wherein this court had observed that the petitioner and other members of his family were entitled to seek regularization with regard to any construction that existed on the said property. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners therein had preferred a review petition and during the pendency of the review petition, that the petitioners learnt of the withdrawal notification issued by the State dated 4/12/1986 and on such information being provided to the court, this court had held that the petitioner was entitled to have the benefit of the withdrawal notification and disposed of the petition. It then entailed that in order to protect the possession of the petitioner, he was required to file a civil suit in O.S.No.8249/2000 as against the Bangalore Development Authority, seeking a declaration that the petitioner and his family are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit was however dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 16/3/2012 holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction in respect to the subject-matter in question and that he was required to approach this court in its writ jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal in RFA No. 886/12 was preferred before this court and the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 25/7/2013 holding thus: "Para 4: Insofar as the contention that the appellant had already approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction and he would be precluded from approaching it over again, may not be the correct position, if indeed the earlier order of this Court was of the year 1989, when only four years had elapsed from the date of the final notification of the year 1985 and therefore, if subsequently there has been no further development in the BDA taking recourse to the provisions of the Act and taking possession of the land and if the scheme has not been implemented pursuant to the acquisition, the scheme has not been implemented pursuant to the acquisition, the scheme would have lapsed, in which event, it is open for the appellant to approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction and seek quashing of the acquisition proceedings on that ground. This observation is made at the instance of the counsel for the appellant who was apprehensive that this court on the writ side would turn him out on the ground that he had already approached the court in its writ jurisdiction. This observation is made at the instance of the counsel for the appellant who was apprehensive that this court on the writ side would turn him out on the ground that he had already approached the court in its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the appellant may approach the court and test his case insofar as the acquisition proceedings having been rendered bad on account of non implementation of the scheme." This court has taken note of the stand of the petitioner who was the appellant therein that, in view of the long lapse of time pursuant to the notifications issued and in the absence of any further action on the part of the Bangalore Development Authority in developing the land in question or taking possession of the same, the petitioner would be entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings insofar the petitioner's land was concerned, in the writ jurisdiction of this court. It is on dismissal of the appeal with the above observation, that the present writ petition is filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the above sequence of events in contending that the Bangalore Development Authority not having taken any further action pursuant to the initial notification issued in the year 1978, which according to -the Bangalore Development Authority would yet apply to the land in question, as what has been withdrawn was only in respect of the notification insofar as it covers ten items of land, but the present item which is the subject matter of the present petition was not, however, covered under the withdrawal notification. The notification for acquisition would apply in all fours insofar as the said item is concerned, is not available to the Bangalore Development Authority in the absence of an indication that there was any impediment for the Bangalore Development Authority to take the acquisition proceedings forward and even after a lapse of 35 years to contend that the land is available for acquisition and development is no longer available to the Bangalore Development Authority and would therefore submit that by sheer lapse of time, the acquisition proceedings are no longer relevant and even if the land was sought to be acquired under a scheme, possession not even taken of land in question, the scheme is redundant insofar as the said land is concerned and therefore would seek that the notification of the year 1978 and 1985, be quashed, insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned. 7. The Bangalore Development Authority has entered appearance and filed statement of objections to vehemently oppose the petition and it is asserted that the Bangalore Development Authority had acquired lands measuring 1179.39 acres for the formation of 'Hennur-Bellary road II Stage Layout', popularly known as the HBR Layout, under the final notification dated 28/2/1985 and it is true that the acquisition insofar as the lands belonging to the petitioner's family numbering eleven items, was withdrawn insofar as the ten items of lands were concerned. However the land which is the subject-matter of the present petition, continue to be covered under the notifications. The purported inaction on the part of the Bangalore Development Authority in taking further action in respect of the land in question, is apparently on account of the series of proceedings initiated by the petitioner which admittedly are referred to in the pleadings in the writ petition and it is by virtue of the interim orders of stay, restraining the hand of the Bangalore Development Authority in taking further steps, that the acquisition proceedings may not have been complete in respect of the land in question. 8. 8. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority would also submit that the petitioner is guilty of serious irregularities and the land has been sold even after the final notification has been issued, in favour of the third parties and there is serious allegations of the involvement of certain Corporators and therefore the matter is under investigation by the Karnataka Lokayuktha and the entire records pertaining to the land in question have also been seized by the said authority and therefore the Bangalore Development Authority is handicapped in presenting the complete particulars of the land in question and the manner in which the Bangalore Development Authority has been prevented in taking further steps insofar as the land in question is concerned. 9. The statement of objections, however, is silent as to the manner in which the present land of the petitioner's is sought to be utilized and how the same would be developed along with other lands, if any. 10. Given the above facts and circumstances and the inability on the part of the Bangalore Development Authority to substantiate its contentions by producing any further material, apart from Annexure-R1, which is panchnama drawn up by the Lokayuktha in certain proceedings, it cannot be concluded that the Bangalore Development Authority was not in a position to take further steps pursuant to the notifications issued in the year 1978 and 1985, namely the notifications under Sections 17 and 19 of the BDA Act, respectively, and having regard to the sheer lapse of time in which there is total inaction on the part of the Bangalore Development Authority, it cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings can yet be pursued at this point of time, insofar as the land in question is concerned, in the absence of award having been passed or possession having been taken and the proceedings languishing at the stage of final notification in the year 1985, cannot be sustained. The further contention that the Bangalore Development Authority was terminated from taking further action on account of there being restraint orders, either of this court or of the civil court, are also not demonstrated by placing before this court, any such orders, which did, indeed prevent the Bangalore Development Authority in taking further action. The further contention that the Bangalore Development Authority was terminated from taking further action on account of there being restraint orders, either of this court or of the civil court, are also not demonstrated by placing before this court, any such orders, which did, indeed prevent the Bangalore Development Authority in taking further action. Insofar as the contention that there are proceedings pending before the Lokayuktha and therefore there is difficulty for the Bangalore Development Authority to substantiate its contentions, would also not be relevant, if there are indeed project involving the land in question, the criminal law would take its course and that would not be a ground to hold that the acquisition proceedings are saved by virtue of such criminal proceedings, pending. The acquisition proceedings are completely independent of any irregularity or criminal proceedings pertaining to the acts of the petitioner or his family members or such other third parties. 11. Therefore the petition is allowed. The proceedings insofar as Annexures 'D' and 'D1', are quashed. The acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.76/2 of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, stands quashed.