ORDER 1. The endorsement of respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, dated 19/10/2013 (Annexure “E”) is assailed in this writ petition and a direction is sought against the respondents to reenter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.96/1, measuring 1 Acre at Chellikere village, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore District, (herein after called land in question). 2. The petitioner is stated to be a Society and owner of the aforesaid land having acquired it by a registered sale deed dated 08/04/1975. The petitioner is stated to be engaged in educational activity. On purchase of the aforesaid land, it was converted for nonagricultural use by order dated 04/04/1982. When the matter stood thus, preliminary notification was issued under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 dated 21/03/1977 by the State Government, proposing to acquire the land in question amongst the other lands for the purpose of formation of Hennur Road and Banaswadi Road Layout and the same was gazetted on 05/05/1977. Final notification was issued under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act, which was gazetted on 12/06/1980. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that it was not notified of the acquisition proceedings till the notice of award dated 22/09/1986 was issued on 10/10/1986. Petitioner had preferred W.P.No.18766/1986 praying to restrain the respondent from taking possession of the land. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 01/07/1987, reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail validity of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, if so advised. Petitioner thereafter, preferred W.A.No.1044/87. During the pendency of that appeal, Bangalore Development Authority had taken a decision to reconvey the area where the petitioner – Society had put up the Church and had submitted a report deleting the land in question from the acquisition proceedings to the extent where the Church building was constructed. The writ appeal was disposed of by this Court on 15/10/1990 reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government. On 02/01/1991 petitioner submitted a representation requesting denotification of the land in question on the premise that possession had not yet been taken from it. 4. When the matter stood thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Society of St. Joseph’s College v. Union of India and Ors. On 02/01/1991 petitioner submitted a representation requesting denotification of the land in question on the premise that possession had not yet been taken from it. 4. When the matter stood thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Society of St. Joseph’s College v. Union of India and Ors. [AIR (2002) 1 SCC 273 ], interpreted Clause (1A) of Article 30 of the Constitution and held that compulsory acquisition of the property of minority educational institutions must ensure that the rights guaranteed under Article 30 of Constitution are not violated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also opined that it was for the Parliament or the State Legislature to make such a law. Thereafter, petitioner preferred W.P.Nos.25708709/2009 assailing certain Sections of the Land Acquisition Act as well as the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, as being ultra vires, the Constitution and the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petition under Article 14 and 26 of the Constitution. The writ petition was disposed of on 14/09/2012 by declaring that the acquisition of land in question insofar as the petitioner was concerned had lapsed. The order of the learned Single Judge was based on the ratio and observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Society of St. Joseph’s College, thereafter, petitioner made a representation to the first and second respondent, for restoration of its name in the revenue records including the RTCs in respect of the land in question. 5. In response to that, first respondent issued a communication dated 08/07/2013, directing third respondent to consider the documents and orders of the Courts with regard to restoration of petitioner’s name in the revenue records. Second respondent however, issued an endorsement dated 19/10/2013, requesting petitioners to produce notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which would enable him to act on the representation made by the petitioner. That endorsement dated 19/10/2013 is the subject matter of this writ petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, who appears for respondents and perused the material on record. 7. That endorsement dated 19/10/2013 is the subject matter of this writ petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, who appears for respondents and perused the material on record. 7. The matter was listed on 17/12/2013 and on that day, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein, it has been stated that where there is lapse of acquisition, it would be by way of operation of law and that would not necessiate withdrawal from acquisition as contemplated under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. That in this case also it would not be necessary to issue any such notification particularly, having regard to the fact that this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner had declared that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land had lapsed by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He therefore, submitted that a notification under Section 48 of the said Act is not necessary and therefore the endorsement is not in accordance with law. Hence a direction may be issued to the second respondent to once again re enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. 8. Per contra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents supported the endorsement dated 19/10/2013, by contending that even if there is a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed, nevertheless notifications pertaining to the acquisition are still in force and therefore, the Tahsildar was right in issuing the said endorsement. 9. I have perused the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.25708709/2009 dated 14/09/2012. This Court by placing reliance in the case of The Society of St. Joseph’s College, held that there was no impediment for the petitioner to seek benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the scheme insofar as the petitioner’s land was concerned, would lapse by virtue of the State Legislature not having enacted any law as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Para 14 of that order reads as follows and it is extracted for immediate reference: “14. Para 14 of that order reads as follows and it is extracted for immediate reference: “14. In that view of the matter and in the light of the admitted circumstances, as is evident from the material on record that the possession of the petitioners’ land has never been taken, it can safely be presumed that the acquisition proceedings in so far as the petitioners’ land and buildings are concerned was not completed as on the relevant date specified by the Apex Court and accordingly, the acquisition proceedings and the Scheme contemplated under the acquisition proceedings, in so far as, the petitioners’ land is concerned would lapse and accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SOCIETY OF ST.JOSEPH’S COLLEGE vs. UNION OF INDIA, (2002) 1 SCC 73 and consequently the communication dated 20/8/2008, Annexure‘Z14’ is quashed and accordingly, the acquisition in so far as the petitioner’s lands are concerned would lapse.” Therefore, learned Single Judge declared that the acquisition insofar as the petitioner’s land was concerned had lapsed. The order of the learned Single Judge has attained finality inasmuch as there has been no challenge to that order. Therefore, when there is a lapse in acquisition, would it still entail a notification under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, as has been insisted by the second respondent – Tahsildar is the issue to be answered. 10. Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act enables the State Government to withdraw from acquisition any land of which possession has not been taken. Liberty is reserved with the Government is to exercise its wisdom and volition to pass an order of withdrawal from acquisition where possession of the land has not been taken. As opposed to what has been stated under Section 48 of that Act, the consequence of lapse of acquisition is quite distinct. Infact, the concept of lapse of a scheme as contemplated under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, came up for consideration in case of Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority and Others [ (2011) 3 SCC 139 ], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that even where a scheme lapses, the acquisition may not. But this would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the given case. But this would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the given case. Where the lands stand vested in the State Government in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition would not lapse or terminate as a result of lapse of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act. 11. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that possession of the land in question vests with the petitioner – society and therefore, it was still open to the State Government to have acted under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. But would that exercise now arise having regard to the declaration made by this Court in the order extracted above wherein, this Court has said that there has been a lapse in the acquisition of the petitioner’s land. The resultant position of a lapse of acquisition has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh Bhatti v. State of Haryana [ (2009) 11 SCC 480 ], in the context of Section 48 and Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. While making a distinction between withdrawal of acquisition under Section 48 of the Act and lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 11A of the said Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 is indicative of a voluntary and conscious act of the Government whereas, lapse of notification under Section 11A of the Act is on account of a statutory lapse in the acquisition proceedings and would not amount to withdrawal of acquisition under Section 48A of the Act. Where the award is not passed within two years from the date of issuance of the final notification, in such a case, there would be lapse of acquisition as stated in Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. When there is a lapse of acquisition, the proceeding of acquisition would no longer continue. In such an event, it would not be necessary for the State Government to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, quashing of acquisition notifications are an exercise made by the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the acquisition proceedings are assailed on account of an illegality. In such an event, it would not be necessary for the State Government to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, quashing of acquisition notifications are an exercise made by the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the acquisition proceedings are assailed on account of an illegality. Thus the State Government need not withdraw the notifications of acquisitions by exercising power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, when it is a case of lapse of acquisition. 12. Therefore, drawing sustenance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by way of analogy, the ratio in case of Rajinder Singh Bhatti, would squarely apply to the present case particularly, where this Court held that the acquisition of petitioner’s land has lapsed. It is possibly in this context, the Deputy Commissioner had communicated to the Tahsildar, to take necessary steps on the representation made by the petitioner, as is evident from the communication dated 08/07/2013, which is at Annexure “D”. Therefore, second respondent – Tahsildar, was not right in insisting that there should be a notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act before the representation by the petitioner for reentering its name in the revenue records could be made. In that view of the matter, endorsement dated 19/10/2013 is quashed. The respondent – authorities are directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law, without insisting upon any notification being issued by the State Government under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The said consideration shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.